The Discourse Genre and the Dispute Over the Forms of (Re)Construction of Social Practices

ABSTRACT

This article aims to discuss how the (co-)construction of discourse genre shows disputes over the (re)construction of social reality. To accomplish this, a theoretical review is done, bringing the Bakhtinian postulates closer to those of Critical Discourse Analysis, in the formulation of Critical Genre Analysis. A socio-educational group session (sessão de grupo socioeducativo) for men who have committed violence against women is analyzed, illustrating the discursive dispute regarding the constituent frame of the genre’s theme. The data analyzed was generated over 12 months of ethnographic research field work. The discussion allows us to perceive the open nature of language and practices, made intelligible through critical analysis of discourse genres, and points to essential openings in the political struggle for social change.

KEYWORDS:
Discourse genre; Critical Genre Analysis; Social change

RESUMO

O presente artigo tem por objetivo discutir o modo como a (co-)construção do gênero discursivo aponta para disputas sobre a (re)construção da realidade social. Para tanto, ensaia-se uma reflexão teórica, aproximando os postulados bakhtinianos aos da Análise Crítica de Discurso, na formulação da Análise Crítica de Gêneros. Analisa-se uma sessão de grupo socioeducativo para homens autores de violência contra a mulher, ilustrando a disputa discursiva sobre o recorte constituinte do tema do gênero. Os dados analisados foram gerados em pesquisa de tipo etnográfico, ao longo de 12 meses de trabalho em campo. A discussão permite perceber a natureza aberta da linguagem e das práticas, tornada inteligível por meio da análise crítica de gêneros discursivos, e aponta para pontos de aberturas imprescindíveis na luta política por mudanças sociais.

PALAVRAS-CHAVE:
Gênero discursivo; Análise crítica de gênero; Mudança social

Introduction

From the perspective of critical discourse studies, it is believed that social practices and discursive practices respond to each other, since language is both a means and the result of broader social, discursive and ideological processes. In this context, discursive genres – the realized aspect of practices – are the object of disputes in the thematic and stylistic-compositional scope that points to disputes about the practices themselves. Such disputes are what this article deals with. Specifically, it aims to show how the co-construction of the thematic horizon of the socio-educational group session genre occurs in order to (dis)legitimize the need for changes in the relationships between masculinities and femininities.

To do so, in a first moment I discuss the transformations of intimacy within the discourse of modernity, especially in terms of masculinities and femininities. Secondly, in the following two sections, I discuss the relations between language (in the discursive genre aspect) and social practices. Next, I present the instances of generation and analysis of the data that composes the research, and then, in the next section, I analyze an excerpt of the genre socio-educational group session, pointing out how its thematic configuration features disputes about the practices that compose the network of which this genre is part of.

1

Practices of Masculinities and Femininities in the Discourse of Modernity

Several authors (CONNELL, 2005;¹ CONNELL, MESSERSCHMIDT, 2005;² KIMMELL, 1998; WELZER-LANG, 2001 among others.) have pointed out that masculinities (and femininities) are not a kind of “[...] fixed character types” (CONNEL, 2005, p.81).³ Specifically, masculinities

[...] are configurations of practice generated in particular situations in a changing structure of relationships. They are inherently historical; and their making and remaking is a political process affecting the balance of interests in society and the direction of social change (CONNELL, 2005, p.44).⁴

Considering the influence of historic forces, there is an emergence of what Connel (2005)⁵ calls hegemonic masculinity - a result of the embodiment of the historically most “honorable” way of being a man in a given time-space. It demands, in the words of Connell and Messerschmidt (2005, p.832),⁶ “[...] all other men to position themselves in relation to it, and it ideologically legitimated the global subordination of women to men.” (CONNELL, MESSERSCHMIDT, 2005;⁷ KIMMELL, 1998; WELZER-LANG, 2001) This is done through symbols, through constructions that do not always concern real possibilities of living, since “[...] hegemony works in part through the production of exemplars of masculinity [...], symbols that have authority despite the fact that most men and boys do not fully live up to them” (CONNELL, MESSERSCHMIDT, 2005, p.846).⁸

According to Giddens (1992),⁹ Modernity¹⁰ has implied substantial transformations in intimacy and, consequently, in the practices of masculinities and femininities. Thus, for example, wider social changes have contributed to the emergence of what the author calls “romantic love,” that is, a relationship based “[...] on considerations other than economic value judgments” (GIDDENS, 1992, p.26).¹¹ In this context, Giddens explains (1992),¹² there is the liberation of the marital bond from broader kinship ties, centered only on economic relations (GIDDENS, 1992;¹³ 1991a).¹⁴

This type of relationship, as the sociologist explains, occurs mainly within the European bourgeois classes and spreads discursively as a model for the colonies. In this case, values such as manhood and civility, on the one hand, and docility and maternity, on the other, were linked to the practices of, respectively, hegemonic masculinities and emphasized femininities, which constitute the relationships guided by “romantic love.” Specifically, incorporating elements of passionate love (centered on sexuality) to the ideals of marriage, romantic love is articulated with i) the “creation of the home”, that is, the separation between the public and private space, ii) the modification of the relationships between parents and children, since domestic life and their education is the woman’s role and, articulately, iii) the “invention of motherhood” (GIDDENS, 1992).¹⁵

In this context, the woman is restricted to the private sphere, being responsible for the reproduction and education of children as well as for the care of her husband. Men, on the other hand, intensify themselves as agents of the public context, distancing themselves from the home, mainly due to work (NOLASCO, 1993). This model of relations is widespread in European colonies, including Brazil, and is articulated with local aspects that made up the colonial strategy. In this case, racism is highlighted, especially in the 19th century, in the context of the abolition of slavery. This fact is illustrated, for example, in the policies of whitewashing through incentives of immigration of European white workers to the country (cf. BESSE, 1996;¹⁶ MISKOLCI, 2012).

Thus, hegemonic masculinity was forged through the discourse of valuing “civility,” work, separation of public (for men) and private (for women) contexts, in accordance with European models. On the other hand, in this case, the model of emphasized femininity was also legitimized, centered on docility and the care of the home and children.

Although this model of masculinity - related to civility and work - implied in the European context the detachment, for example, from physical violence, it did not mean the end of male dominative relations, since the model of “manly man” was still tied to the notion of domination, including domination over women. In the words of Baubérot (2013, p.216), the hegemonic, “civilized” masculinity of modernity

[...] insists on an absolute domination, the first example of which is to be applied in the taming of “the horses that are most fiery.” He further underlines a very precise relationship with his wife, who must be “governed like a pupil”: a deliberately fragile subject, a lady who “must be as ready to obey as it is your duty to command.”¹⁷

Although hegemonic, such model has been problematized within Modernity itself, since facts such as the emergence of plastic sexuality (GIDDENS, 1992)¹⁸ and the increasing insertion of women into public spaces, especially from the twentieth century on, have led to questions about the model of masculinities and, especially, femininities. This questioning is strengthened in what has been named the second wave of feminism, when the model of the “queen of the home” wife is problematized. In this sense, other aspects of Modernity also imply problematizations of what emerges from this same context. Thus, expert systems, for example, and the notion of lifestyles involve tensions that orbit the contradictory aspects of the modern context. This applies in terms of intimacy.

These contradictions – hotbeds of tension – appear in the national context. Thus, the “modernization” so much desired by the elites had brought to the country, according to these same elites, some “risks,” especially regarding the changes in women’s customs (their clothes, their hair, their posture). According to Besse (1996),¹⁹ the current discourse at the end of the 19th century and, especially, the beginning of the 20th century, for example, was that such changes were causing a “crisis in the family,” something that represented a risk to the country’s development project, whose success depended largely on maintaining the sexual division of labor, which allowed both the liberation of men for service in the public sphere and the maintenance of cheap labor of women in the domestic environment.

These contradictions, tensions, and disputes constitute and are constituted through social practices throughout history. Masculinities and femininities (as much as certain configurations of practices as “models,” or rather, discourses) are legitimized and constituted through the practices in which people engage, – or even are driven to engage in by diverse social forces. In this case, the discursive dimension of the practices assumes a relevant role, above all because it is through discourses that the practices are justified, legitimized, exist. It is about this relationship between discourse and social practices that the next section deals with.

2

Theoretical Background for a Discursive Genre Analysis Linked to the Analysis of Social Practices

Discourse concerns “[...] language in its concrete living totality, and not language as the specific object of linguistics, something arrived at through a completely legitimate and necessary abstraction from various aspects of the concrete life of the word.” (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.181)²⁰ In a broad sense, the Discourse concerns language as semiotic material constitutive of and constituted by social practices (FAIRCLOUGH, 2003).²¹ It is part of the practices and is materialized in concrete utterances (BAKHTIN, 1986),²² or in texts (FAIRCLOUGH, 1992;²³ 2003),²⁴ in the different interactions (events) in which subjects engage in different spheres of activities. In this sense, discourse always presupposes the saturated linguistic materiality of social reality – of the dialogical, axiological and intersubjective relations that presuppose this reality.

As part of social practices, that is, of the “[...] habitualized ways, tied to particular times and places, in which people apply resources (material or symbolic) to act together in the world” (CHOULIARAKI; FAIRCLOUGH, 1999, p.21);²⁵ the Discourse functions in an overdetermined way in relation to other instances of practices, such as material activity, mental phenomenon and social relations. As Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999)²⁶ explain, these dimensions constitute each other, so that, on one hand, the whole “extralinguistic” dimension traditionally excluded from the studies of the area, for example, constitutes the Discourse.

On the other hand, Discourse constitutes the other dimensions of practice, since “Every ideological sign is not only a reflection, a shadow, of reality, but is also itself a material segment of that very reality” (VOLOŠINOV, 1986, p.11; my emphasis).²⁷ Through the sign the “refraction” of a material reality is constituted, and this “refraction,” of a signic nature, is constitutive of this same “refracted” reality. In short, the Discourse constitutes the social reality about which it speaks (FAIRCLOUGH, 1992).²⁸

The nature of what I call reality here can be understood from the postulations of Critical Realism, which subsidizes the discussion in Critical Discourse Analysis and in part from Critical Genre Analysis, theories that support the present discussion. From this perspective, reality is an open and stratified system, whose instances maintain a relationship of mutual constitutivity. As Resende (2009) explains, reality is composed of three domains: real, realized and empirical. The first one corresponds to what exists, whether natural or social, regardless of being an empirical object for us and having an adequate understanding of its nature, being therefore a potential structure. The second refers to what happens if and when the causal powers of structures, of what is potential, are activated. The third refers to the particular experiences of specific events (FAIRCLOUGH, JESSOP, SAYER, 2013).²⁹

In this approach, language, as a semiotic system, belongs to the domain of structures – of the real³⁰ – while texts, as concrete material of each discursive event, relate to the domain of the empirical. Social practices, on the other hand, constitute the intermediate instance between structures (language) and events (texts or concrete utterances), thus comprising the domain of the discursive genres, that is, of the relatively historically stabilized utterances (BAKHTIN, 1986).³¹ The systematization of this approach is presented in the following table:

Table 1 Theoretical articulations about the dimensions of social reality

Domains of stratification of reality (according to Critical Realism)	Domains of stratification of reality (as proposed by Critical Discourse Analysis)	Dimension of language (as proposed by Critical Genre Analysis)
Real	Social structures	Language
Realized	Social practices	Discursive Genres
Empirical	Events	Utterances

Source: Ferretti (2020)

Being reality an open system, given the dialogical nature between structure (stabilized) and social events (unprecedented), that is, that social structure is both a means and a result of localized practices and events, as proposed by Giddens (1984);³² it theoretically assumes the possibility of social change. As Meurer (2004, p.143)³³ states, “[...] as individuals act in the world, they make use of – and at the same time recreate – specific social structures.” This fact occurs since the relationship between structures and events, the locus of human action, is dialectic, transformational.

In the words of Bhaskar (2010, p.3, author’s emphasis),³⁴ such a posture defends “[...] an understanding of the relationship between social structures and human agency that is based on a transformational conception of social activity, and which avoids both voluntarism and reification.”

In short, action on each of the generative mechanisms that constitute each of the instances of social practices – and, consequently, of structures and events – implies action on reality. Considering that the instance of social practices (to which the genres are related) encompasses both the unprecedented (concrete events/announced) and stabilized (structure/language), this is a fertile locus of analysis of social change, as defended by Fairclough (1992;³⁵ 2003).³⁶ Let us see, then, specifically, the dimensions that constitute the discursive genres, one of the instances of constitution of the practices.

3

Discursive Genres as an Instance of Social Struggle for the Configuration of Practices

According to Bakhtin (1986),³⁷ discursive genres³⁸ are relatively stable forms of concrete utterances and are also the instance through which language is given to us. They are then, as I have pointed out since the previous section, crossed by both stable and unstable. The utterances, in turn, as “[...] a real unit of speech communion [...]” (BAKHTIN, 1986, p.67; author’s emphasis),³⁹ are concrete and unique, and are also made up of the horizons: spatial and temporal; thematic and axiological (BAKHTIN, 1986;⁴⁰ RODRIGUES, 2005).

Bakhtin (1986)⁴¹ points out as criteria for finalization/distinction between the utterances: a) the change of speaking subjects; b) expressiveness and c) exhaustiveness. This is based on three factors: the exhaustive treatment of the object and the meaning; the intentionality of the speaker and the genres of discourse. Thus, genre and utterance are intertwined in the realization of social practices in/through which people “live their lives” (GIDDENS, 1984).⁴²

In material terms, the boundaries of concrete utterance, as proposed by Bakhtin (1986),⁴³ point to a conclusion carried out by an author (personal or institutional), who emerges as the voice that orchestrates all the others (complete utterance).⁴⁴ However, there are also stabilized discursive forms that have diverse authors, whose combination/negotiation/discursive dispute is that it forms a certain genre (relatively stable utterance), as in the cases of the meeting, the chat, the medical consultation, etc. (framed utterance). In this case, the orchestration is carried out jointly, with the signature of the different subjects under the same discursive genre, a kind of relatively stabilized “great utterance.”

Therefore, genre, in general terms, is a discursive unit typified in its thematic and stylistic-compositional dimension, whose boundaries are marked by the conclusion given by the enunciator themselves (complete utterance) or by an observer⁴⁵ (framed utterance). I emphasize, then – given its relevance to the data analyzed below – the fact that, in the case of the framed utterance, the dialogic character of co-construction of the world and of the subjects (intersubjectivity) via discursive clashes in social practices is even more explicit.

It can be observed that what we often call “voices” participating in a certain genre, orchestrated by a certain author (in complete utterance), are in this type of framed utterance, for example, embodied and in dialogical struggle with each other, orienting themselves towards a finalization that is itself pleaded as a way of disputing the ways of constructing the practice and, by extension, the world. It is in this sense that genres emerge as an instance of social struggle for the configuration of practices, since they are an instance that both restricts utterances and is (re)defined⁴⁶ by them, reaching structures and being the object of disputes/negotiations that go back and forth through the (networks of) diverse practices in intercontextual⁴⁷ relations of configuration of practices.

Thus, disputes on the thematic horizon between the subjects that (re)produce the discursive genre and clashes over stylistic-compositional choices of genre embody the social struggle itself around the aspects of reality on which genre acts, which discourse constitutes. Let’s take a closer look at this issue when we specifically address the thematic horizon.

4

The Thematic Horizon and the Dispute for the Forms of Finalization of Reality

The thematic regularity of a genre is characterized by the contact between meaning and concrete reality in typical circumstances (BAKHTIN, 1986).⁴⁸ In other words, the theme is related to how the “[...] entire reality of the word is wholly absorbed in its function of being a sign [...].” (VOLOŠINOV, 1986, p.14).⁴⁹ In the context of the utterance, and consequently of the typified utterance, the theme is “[...] determined not only by the linguistic forms that comprise it — words, morphological and syntactic structures, sounds, and intonation — but also by extraverbal factors of the situation.” (VOLOŠINOV, 1986, p.100).⁵⁰ Moreover, “[...] it is inseparable from the total situation of the utterance to the same extent that it is inseparable from linguistic elements” (BAKHTIN/MEDVEDEV, 1978, p.132).⁵¹

Although not separate from meaning, the theme differs from it in that it takes it as a “technical apparatus” for its realization, and it ultimately emerges only through and in concrete utterance. In this case, however, it is not a question of a total semantic opening, which would make verbal interaction impossible, since “[...] a theme must base itself on some kind of fixity of meaning; otherwise it loses its connection with what came before and what comes after it, altogether loses its significance.” (VOLOŠINOV, 1986, p 100)⁵² In other words, “Meaning, in essence, means nothing; it only possesses potentiality – the possibility of having a meaning within a concrete theme” (VOLOŠINOV, 1986, p.101).⁵³

The relationship between meaning and theme can thus be understood in a parallel manner to the existing relationship between structure, social practice, and event, in a relationship of mutual constitutivity, as I discussed in the previous sections. In this perspective, meaning is related to language as a potential structure, which, although constituted by social practices, provides them with the potentials for their realization.

The theme is related to social practices and events. In this case, there would be a difference (taxonomic, not concrete) between the theme of genre and the theme of enunciation. In the latter, the theme refers to the domain of meaning constituted in the contact between meaning and concrete utterance. Hence the fact that it constitutes “A definite and unitary meaning, a unitary significance, is a property belonging to any utterance as a whole” (VOLOŠINOV, 1986, p.99).⁵⁴

This situation, however, although always unprecedented, is typified throughout history and it is this typification that gives rise to relatively stable utterances, whose aspects are – like events – typified. In short, here we have the genres of discourses and their typical themes. In the words of Bakhtin (1986, p.87):⁵⁵ “Genres correspond to typical situations of speech communication, typical themes, and, consequently, also to particular contacts between the meanings of words and actual concrete reality under certain typical circumstances.” By way of example: “death” as meaning exists as a realizable potential in language. If “death” appears as the theme of a joke or a death notice it will acquire specific outlines in each of these two genres, but this is not enough yet to reach the theme of the concrete utterance, and affirm that death will always have the same meaning in all jokes and in all death notices, because there are aspects that make up the theme that are given strictly by the immediate situation of interaction, by the concrete moment of existence (theme of the utterance). Therefore, the structure of meaning, the theme typified as realizable in genre and the concrete theme as realization and reiteration (or change) of the concrete/live instances are in operation. Therefore, there is always a work on the potential structures of meaning.

This work on the potential meaning in thematic construction, as VOLOŠINOV (1986)⁵⁶ explains, is related to expressiveness, that is, to the appreciative accent of the speaker(s), which is doubly oriented to reality: to the interlocutors and to life, through its thematic content (BAKHTIN/MEDVEDEV, 1978).⁵⁷ Thus, meaning is constructed and enters the dialogical chain already saturated by the axiological horizon of the one who constructs it, that is, “[...] all referential contents produced in living speech are said or written in conjunction with a specific evaluative accent” (VOLOŠINOV, 1986, p.103).⁵⁸ This appreciating accent corresponds here to the accent given by the author who expresses his object of saying through living speech.

However, Bakhtin (1986)⁵⁹ explains, the utterance is a complex phenomenon, “full of dialogic tones.” In this sense, the semantic-objective content of a certain utterance is not something taken as an aseptic, neutral and exempt entity, on which in each interaction there is an axiological investment first. The semantic-objective content enters the dialogical chain – and thus is constitutive of the utterance – always already saturated with the intrinsic expressiveness of the utterance of another. In this sense, “the expression of an utterance always responds to a greater or lesser degree, that is, it expresses the speaker’s attitude toward others’ utterances and not just his attitude toward the object of his utterance” (BAKHTIN, 1986, p.92).⁶⁰ In this context, a dispute for a certain sense, within a certain sphere (or between spheres in intercontextual relation), is also a dispute for certain axiological positions, for certain ways of orienting oneself to the world (giving it finalization), to the other, and of (re)constructing them.

This relationship becomes substantial in the analysis of social changes, as the clash of different axiological positions, their negotiation, and the relative stabilization of certain meanings point to the possibility of processes of displacement in the axiological horizon of interlocutors, social groups and spheres of activities, and the very constitution of discursive genres. More than “pointing out,” this aspect – as understood here – enables the emergence of other senses, which, depending on the discursive management of interlocutors in social practices, may contribute to the effectiveness of processes of (in)transitivity or critical transitivity (FREIRE, 1976),⁶¹ being this one of the central points in CGA research (BONINI, 2013).

Given the mutually constitutive character between social structures and events, the management of meaning and, progressively, signification, is part of the possible ways of (re)constructing practices. This takes place through diverse collective clashes in different social practices, also enabling different forms of orientation to the world, to the other and to oneself.

Next, I will present an excerpt of a socio-educational group session for men who perpetrate violence against women, in order to illustrate the functioning of these relationships between genre and social practice in a situated practice. Before that, however, let us look at the context of generation and analysis of these data.

5

Methodological Aspects and Data Context

Being under the umbrella of research in Applied Linguistics, the analysis presented in the following section, which illustrates the theoretical assertions proposed so far, focuses on socially relevant problems that have language as a central aspect (MOITA LOPES, 2006), seeking to intervene on such problems through critical reflection. In stricter terms, the research to be presented takes the qualitative perspective (MASON, 1998)⁶² and foregrounds ethnographic instruments for data generation (participant observation, audio recordings, notes and field diary), which are described and interpreted (FAIRCLOUGH, 2003)⁶³ in light of the theoretical postulations assumed.

In this sense, the relevant social problem is the recurrence of several types of violence against women and their relationship with the ways of giving meaning to gender relations based on hegemonic patterns of masculinities and femininities (centered on several types of violence). Based on this, the reflection focuses on social practices that already seek to intervene on the problem. In this case, it is about the practice of the socio-educational group for men who are perpetrators of violence against women, proposed as a public policy promoted by the Unified Social Assistance System [Sistema Único de Assistência Social, in Portuguese] (SUAS) and carried out by the Specialized Social Assistance Reference Center [Centro de Referência Especializado em Assistência Social, in Portuguese] (CREAS), managed by the Municipal Department for the Social Development [Secretaria Municipal de Desenvolvimento Social, in Portuguese] (SEMUDES), in a city⁶⁴ in the South region of the country.

This policy has been in operation in the city in question since 2004 and assists men who have been involved in situations of violence against women (especially in the marital context) and who access SUAS, through its different fronts, especially through the Social Assistance Reference Centers [Centros de Referência em Assistência Social] (CRAS). Since 2014, the group also assists men who have been compulsorily referred by the Judiciary System, in the fulfillment of sentences or emergencial protective measures.

In organizational terms, the group is planned from a set of 12 sessions with about 1h30min each, which take place every 15 days and whose themes range from the “Maria da Penha Law,” through “Fatherhood” to more explicitly “Gender Issues.” The sessions are planned to occur in a cyclical manner, so that the themes are repeated. However, the data indicate that, in practice, there is constant replanning depending on events within the group and on the broader social context itself. The group in question was monitored via participant observation for 12 months, a period in which the audio recording of a set of 12 consecutive sessions was carried out, which were later transcribed, as Annex, and constitute the central data of the analysis.

As a text-ritual, the stylistic-compositional structuring of the session is marked by the boundaries of its operation. Thus, it is possible to frame it, tracing its boundaries at the opening and closing, which are indentually marked, that is, they can be retrieved through the linguistic marks that maintain a contiguous relationship with the most immediate context of the situation (HANKS, 2008). Between these boundaries, the session consists of two other recurring aspects: the presentation of oneself and the activity, the latter being what occupies most of the session and can be subdivided into presentation/explanation and execution/discussion. In sequential terms, the session is then organized into: i) opening, ii) presentation of oneself, iii) activities, and iv) closing.

The session that illustrates the discussion of this article took place in September 2016 and had the participation of 09 members, 02 men who commited acts of violence against women and who participated in the group on a voluntary basis: Alexandre⁶⁵ (unemployed/51 years) and Vicente (janitor/44 years); 03 men who protagonized situations of violence against women and who participate in the group on a compulsory basis: Silvio (NI),⁶⁶ Jaime (small business owner/29 years old) and Beto (mechanic/30 years old); 02 CREAS employees and facilitators of the group: Silvia (psychologist/39 years old) and Ilma (psychologist/35 years old); 01 CREAS employee and facilitator of the group: Roberto (social worker/40 years old) and the researcher: Vanessa (teacher/32 years old).

Let us see, then, how the theme of the socio-educational group session genre is disputed among the participants and acts on broader social clashes about the need for change in gender relations, especially about the models of masculinities and femininities disseminated from the discourse of Modernity.

6

Building Meaning in/of Practice: The Dispute for the Thematic Horizon in a Socio-Educational Group Session for Male Perpetrators of Violence Against Women

As explained earlier, the proposal presented in this article is a cutout of a larger PhD research, conducted between the years 2014 and 2018, and entitled: But there are people who don’t understand it that way’ // -’Yeah. That’s why we’re here’: the socio-educational group session for men who are perpetrators of violence against women and the (re)discursive construction of masculinities [Mas tem gente que não entende assim’ // -’É. É por isso que a gente tá aqui: a sessão de grupo socioeducativo para homens autores de violência contra a mulher e a (re)construção discursiva de masculinidades, in Portuguese]. The research is linked to the Project Critical analysis of genre and policies for teaching language practices [Análise crítica de gênero e as políticas para práticas de ensino de línguas], in the scope of studies of the Núcleo de Estudos em Linguística Aplicada [Applied Linguistics Study Center] (NELA), of the Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina [Federal University of Santa Catarina] (UFSC), and aims to investigate how the discursive genre session operates in the discursive (re)configuration of masculinities.

In the context of the research, the socio-educational group session presents itself as the central genre that carries out the practice, whose thematic horizon concerns the legitimization of the need for changes in social gender relations. This is reflected both in the sub-themes that led to the 12 sessions and in the dialogue mode that structures the stylistic-compositional dimension of genre.⁶⁷

The heterogeneous nature of the participants (men who were protagonists of violent situations against women and were either compulsorily or voluntarily referred to the group, psychologists, social workers, and researchers) implies the confluence of different (and opposing) axiological horizons in the discursive configuration of the session and, by extension, of the social reality itself. As it is a question of enunciate-record, the construction of the thematic horizon of genre, then, implies substantial disputes in terms of (re)configuration of practices that (de)legitimize hegemonic models of masculinities and femininities.

The following excerpt is part of session 01, in which the following utterance was discussed, presented to the group as a popular saying: A woman is only accomplished when she gets married and has children.⁶⁸ In the excerpt preceding Jaime’s utterance, Roberto describes his parents’ lifestyle, emphasizing the way his mother lives for the domestic environment: I don’t know what your mothers are like, but the... my mother, my mother’s story has a trajectory that is from the door of the house... inside, ok? In the private world, okay? For the family, for her garden, ok? And my mom is seventy-three years old, man, her life has passed and she stayed in this life all her life.⁶⁹ (Roberto_S01L243-249) while her father lives for the external contexto: She doesn’t drive, ok?... My father drives, she doesn’t. He has friends at the bar, she’s never been to the bar, my father has friends of all kinds, he doesn’t stay at home, he leaves in the afternoon, in the morning... and Dad is seventy-seven years old... seventy-six... travels and such... (Roberto_S01L249-254).⁷⁰

Roberto points out that this was the traditional way of marital relationships, a model quite convergent to what had been propagated from Modernity. Roberto also marks his discontentment with this lifestyle, pointing out that he has been trying to convince his mother to insert herself in public practices: that’s her life, like... and now I’m fighting with her all the time, because I want her to participate in elderly groups, she can... uh... dance... unfocus on the family a little, ok? Live outside a little... (Roberto_S01L262-266).⁷¹ In response, Jaime speaks, (excerpt 01, below), pointing out that his grandparents live differently. The orientation here, then, is the problematization of the models posed, especially the one that emphasizes hegemonic masculinity as discussed in the second section of this article.

(1)

337	Jaime:	Another thing I notice a lot is, you mentioned
338		your mother, right? These days ((laughs)) I
339		posted a picture on Facebook and the first person to like it
340		was my grandma ((laughs)) And I looked and my grandma is seventy-six
341		years old… she has Facebook, Whatsapp, she sends
342		“good morning” and then I asked her “Grandma, what do
343		you do there?” I want to travel, know the places people
344		post and whatnot…”. “Don’t wanna raise your
345		grandkids?” “What about grandkids… they raise themselves… I want to
346		travel and…” Then I think, right? A while ago…
347		my grandma on Facebook.
348	Silvia:	Maybe she, there in her twenties, when she got married
349		: :… maybe she didn’t allow herself to stop and think if she
350		really wanted to get married and have kids.
351	Jaime:	Exactly, yeah.
352	Silvia:	Maybe there wasn’t... ah... the power of choice and today
353		there is… a little more… and… many women,
354		like men, choose “no, I don’t wanna marry, I want to
355		have another type, another lifestyle,” right? And… so
356		sometimes what happened there, with your grandma or with
357		most, was not even a choice, it was kind of a…
358	Jaime:	Yeah.
359	Silvia:	A social pressure.
360	Jaime:	Yeah, now I see that she fits in. Even now that she is
361		older, right, >seventy six<, she
362		into this modernity, now with this technology
363		and keeps going, you know? …and there she goes. And like… I saw that at first
364		it was difficult, it’s difficult, it’s very difficult
365		((incomprehensible)) you go to the countryside now, no. They
366		have radio, Internet, people communicate and… there is no
367		more of that recipe on paper, go
368		really quick look it up on Google and… these days I saw
369		her looking up a recipe on Google, I said “my
370		God”…
371	Beto:	Your grandma is fifty-six?
372	Jaime:	My grandma? Seventy-six...
373	Beto:	Ah.
374	Jaime:	My grandpa is eighty-three and plays soccer. It’s a family
375		that… they are Ukrainian, right? So they go
376		service… like kind of often like… they have their
377		attendance because Ukrainians are complicated…
378		((laughs)) <but>, I get kind of amazed, you know? How
379		can it be, things changed so fast? My
380		grandpa doesn’t have these things yet, but my grandma is… like
381		I said, right? My grandma is more delicate with
382		these things, but she’s already got them and improved her skills, but my grandpa
383		hasn’t… ((incomprehensible)) that’s why I say that when women
384		want it they go for it and…
385	Beto	Women are more up-to-date, right? But men are more
386		strict.

(Vários_S01L337-389)

It is from this problematization that the discursive disputes about a positive valuation of alternative masculinity and femininity practices to the “modern tradition” are installed in a more explicit way.

According to the participant Jaime, his seventy-six years old grandmother has different goals from those mentioned by Roberto in relation to his mother, that is, Jaime’s grandmother does not want to take care of grandchildren, but to travel (lines 344-346). In his utterance, Jaime distances himself from Roberto, showing that what he says does not apply to the participant’s life. Thus, Jaime builds for himself a positive self-identity before others, since the lifestyle valued by the facilitators and objectified by the practice of the group would already be the one experienced by Jaime, and by his family (taken in a metonymic way by the grandparents).

However, Jaime’s own discourse denounces a position marked by the legitimization of the lifestyle contrary to change. This is due to the silencing of the woman’s choice of marriage, an aspect mentioned by Silvia (lines 352-357) and almost entirely ignored by Jaime.

Silvia, specifically, builds the idea of marriage as one more lifestyle alternative. Her position is in tune with the transformations that intimacy has gone through in the context of late modernity, which concern, for example, the emergence of plastic sexuality and pure relationship, transforming aspects of ways of relating (GIDDENS, 1992).⁷² After all, as Giddens (1992, p.137)⁷³ points out, “[...] a present-day relationship is not, as marriage once was, a ‘natural condition’ whose durability can be taken for granted[...].”⁷⁴

In this sense, Silvia recreates in a comparative way two socio-historically distinct contexts [According to the expressions: there [lá], in her twenties [nos seus vinte anos] versus today [hoje em dia] (lines 348; 352) and use of verbs in the past tense, such as allow-past tense negative [permitia], wanted [queria], didn’t have [não tinha], happened [aconteceu], was not [was not], was [foi] versus in the present, such as choose [escolho], want [quero] (lines 349; 350; 352; 356; 357; 354), respectively], in which there are different chronotropic markings that trigger different relations also between “social pressure” and “individual choice.” At the beginning of her utterance, the facilitator frames the action of Jaime’s grandmother in the past as an individual choice of which she herself had been the agente: maybe she didn’t allow herself to stop and think if she really wanted to get married and have kids... (lines 249-350).⁷⁵ See that Silvia uses the reflexive pronoun to indicate the reasons for Jaime’s grandmother’s choice.

This evaluation, marked by modalization, maybe [talvez], however, is being altered throughout Silvia’s utterance, when she then reformulates such an act as the fruit of social pressure, the mark of a socio-historical context, since it encompasses not only Jaime’s grandmother, but “the majority” of women: what happened there, with your grandma or with most, was not even a choice, it was kind of a... a social pressure.⁷⁶ (lines 455-457; 459) and emphasizes that at the time there was another conjuncture with certain social gender relations (and power) and, therefore, others were the choices: Maybe there wasn’t... ah... the power of choice and today there is… a little more (line 352-353).⁷⁷

This aspect shows, for example, how through the group session one the social practices topicalized here act intercontextually and discursively (in this case, the types of relationships). In addition, the institutional reflectivity about these practices is shown in the role of the facilitator, an expert representing an abstract system (psychology), according to Giddens (1991a).⁷⁸ In addition, there is the officialization in one more social sphere, that is, Social Assistance and, therefore, the social legitimization, of practices previously considered as not legitimate, as is the case of women’s option for non-marriage. There are, therefore, points of dispute/dislocation about certain relationships between the hegemonic model of masculinity and alternative social gender relations.

In this case, finally, Silvia points to the social changes that legitimize her axiological horizon (and through it is legitimized) about marriage, conceived here as one among countless other possible lifestyles. This aspect extends to the entire practice of the socio-educational group, that is, the discussion with the purpose of denaturalizing social gender relations, characteristic of this practice, is then made official and, therefore, legitimized, contributing, in thesis, to macrosocial changes. Thus, this aspect figures the action on the articulation of social rules regarding the structures of legitimization and signification (cf. MEURER, 2004).

In the excerpt, Silvia addresses the participants and, specifically, Jaime, who answers her. Although, throughout Silvia’s speech, the participant had produced utterances of conformity: Exactly, yeah [Exato, é] (lines 351); Yeah [É] (line 358), these are resigned in light of her utterance in response from line 360 and forward, assuming a metadiscrive value, that is, they are at the service of the maintenance of the moment of speech and the marking of its orientation to Silvia. When responding to her, Jaime does not focus on the aspect of change in social gender relations, figuring in the possibility of women’s choice, as Silvia had emphasized and had already been pointed out by Roberto (conf. S01L213-274). Beforehand, he focuses his approach on technological development: These days ((laughs)) I posted a picture on Facebook and the first person to like it was my grandma ((laughs)) And I looked and my grandma is seventy-six years old… she has Facebook, Whatsapp, she sends “good morning” (lines 338-342).⁷⁹

Such action implies the erasure of change in social relations as a subject under discussion. So, although Jaime mentions changes in his grandmother’s actions regarding practices linked to certain discursive social relations here as being from the past: I asked her [...] then I asked her Grandma, what do you do there? I want to travel, know the places people post and whatnot…. Don’t wanna raise your grandkids? What about grandkids… they raise themselves… I want to travel and… Then I think, right? Some time ago… my grandma on Facebook... (lines 342-347),⁸⁰ he doesn’t focus on women in his statement. Besides, even these changes are presented in the midst of laughter, a marker of carnivalization of the enunciated facts.

In the only passage in which he mentions changes in social gender relations, through the re-utterance of questions asked to his grandmother, he is surprised by the changes, as pointed out by the emphasis on “my grandmother on Facebook,” as opposed to the statement “Then I think, right? A while ago…”. In other words, Jaime notes that there have been changes, but he feels surprised at them, even discursive, like something sudden: <but>, I get kind of amazed, you know? How can it be, things changed so fast?⁸¹ (lines 378-379); [...]; ... I said “my God”... [... falei “meu Deus do céu”...] (lines 369-370), which demonstrates your distance from this “other social scenario.”

Moreover, in the treatment of change, centered on technological development, the way Jaime discourses his grandmother, a seventy-six-year-old woman, puts her in the position of a modern woman, since she proficiently uses the tools of this time. This is perceived by the lexical choices that name her actions: she fits into this modernity, now with this technology and keeps going, you know?⁸² (line 361-363), she has perfected herself [se aperfeiçoou] (line 382). However, at the same time, the woman is placed around an emphasized femininity (CONNELL, 2005),⁸³ to the hegemonic molds, since what his grandmother does in the computer is look for culinary recipes: these days I saw her looking up a recipe on Google.⁸⁴ (lines 368-369) In addition, by stating that his grandmother “fits into this modernity,” Jaime points to the pressure of modernity on the individual actions of women and their probable surrender, after all “fitting in” is not to change social situations, but to adapt to them. There is, here, therefore, a movement of passivization of women, hidden in the idea of “being a modern woman (because she uses information technology) at seventy-six years old.”

This way of discoursing on her is intensified when Jaime compares her to her grandfather and is followed by Beto, who emphasizes the place of both in society and the understanding of change that he is co-constructing with Jaime in this context, that is, the change is named “up-to-date”: Women are more up-to-date, right? But men are more strict... (Beto_S01L385-6),⁸⁵ something that is submissive to a kind of seasonality, marking its superficial character and, therefore, does not concern deep structural changes, worthy of credit. Metaphorically, there is also in these choices the marking of the opposition between change (the woman/being/up-to-date) and “tradition” (man/being/strict).

Thus, in terms of the thematic horizon, there are two different ways to give finalization to discursive reality, i.e., concerning changes in social gender relations. On the one hand, Jaime and Beto dissociate the idea of change in social gender relations and, on the other hand, Roberto and Silvia legitimize them as real possibilities in a changing world.

It is clear that even Silvia and Roberto’s orientation is the fruit of this same Modernity discourse, since they incorporate the notions of “lifestyles,” represent the expert knowledge in the session, etc. However, it is undeniable that there is a dislocation of senses within this same discourse from the different axiological horizons on the agenda.

In this sense, Jaime triggers the same discourse of modernity to escape the question of masculinity that is also problematized within this discourse. Thus the discourse of modernity serves as much to guide the permanence as the change in male domination relations, since it incorporates the tensions of this broader social context. On the one hand, still, is constructed here – through disputes over the thematic horizon of the socio-educational group session genre – the discursive dimension of the practices of masculinity and femininity and also, indirectly, of what modernity is, or better yet, practices of modernity.

Final Remarks

The aspect of mutual constitutivity between language and social practices is marked by disputes about the ways to orient oneself to reality and to build practices. In this sense, the present article articulates propositions coming from CDA, from its focus on social practices, and the postulates coming from the Bakhtin Circle, especially the relations between social reality and the thematic horizon of the discursive genres - movements of approximation that have constituted one of the CGA’s formulations. Such interrelations were featured in an analysis in which they dispute frames of the realities in the constitution of the theme in a socio-educational group session for men who are perpetrators of violence against women. On one hand: the change in patterns of femininity and masculinity is positively contextualized as part of a broader structural change. On the other hand, such change is disguised i) by the thematic shift towards “technological changes” and ii) by euphemism, which discourse such changes as a result of being up-to-date. Thus, the open nature of both instances: language and social practices have been made intelligible and point to points of opening, indispensable in the political struggle for social change.

• Translated by Jéssica Soares Lopes – [e-mail]
• 1
  CONNELL, R. W. Masculinities. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005.
• 2
  CONNELL, R. W.; MESSERSCHMIDT, James W. Hegemonic Masculinity. Gender & Society, [S.L.], v. 19, n. 6, pp.829-859, dez. 2005. SAGE Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639.
• 3
  For reference, see footnote 2.
• 4
  For reference, see footnote 2.
• 5
  For reference, see footnote 2.
• 6
  For reference, see footnote 3.
• 7
  For reference, see footnote 3.
• 8
  For reference, see footnote 3.
• 9
  GIDDENS, A. The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1992.
• 10
  The concept of Modernity, from the perspective of de Giddens (1991b, p.1), can be understood as the “[...] modes of social life or organisation which emerged in Europe from about the seventeenth century onwards and which subsequently became more or less worldwide in their influence.” Although Giddens takes it as a fact, here I understand that this phenomenon had different consequences in the places it “reached,” especially those that were or are European colonies, in which Modernity actually configures a colonial strategy.
• 11
  For reference, see footnote 9.
• 12
  For reference, see footnote 9.
• 13
  For reference, see footnote 9.
• 14
  GIDDENS, A. Modernity and Self-Identity. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991a.
• 15
  For reference, see footnote 9.
• 16
  BESSE, S. K. Restructuring Patriarchy: The Modernization of Gender Inequality in Brazil, 1914–1940. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1996.
• 17
  In Portuguese: ‘[...] insiste sobre uma absoluta dominação, cujo primeiro exemplo é aplicar-se na doma ‘dos cavalos que são mais fogosos’. Ele sublinha mais ainda uma relação muito precisa com a esposa, a qual deve ser ‘governada como uma pupila’: súdita deliberadamente frágil, dama que ‘deve estar tão pronta a obedecer quanto é vosso dever de comandar’.”
• 18
  For reference, see footnote 9.
• 19
  For reference, see footnote 16.
• 20
  BAKHTIN, M. M. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Edited and translated by Caryl Emerson, with introduction by Wayne C. Booth. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press, 1984.
• 21
  FAIRCLOUGH, N. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge, 2003.
• 22
  BAKHTIN, M. M. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Translated by Vern W. McGee. Edited by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press Slavic series; n. 8, 1986.
• 23
  FAIRCLOUGH, N. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992.
• 24
  For reference, see footnote 21.
• 25
  CHOULIARAKI, L.; FAIRCLOUGH, N. Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999.
• 26
  For reference, see footnote 25.
• 27
  VOLOŠINOV, V. N. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Translated by Ladislav Matejka and I. R. Titunik. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986.
• 28
  For reference, see footnote 23.
• 29
  FAIRCLOUGH, N.; JESSOP, B.; SAYER, A. Critical Realism and Semiosis. In: FAIRCLOUGH, N. Critical Discourse Analysis. The Critical Study of Language. Second Edition. London and New Yourk: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2013, pp.202-222.
• 30
  Resende (2009) uses the term “potential” instead of “real,” as it would be more adequate to the meaning proposed by Critical Realism, that is, in relation to the existence of structures as potentials that can be activated. Therefore, throughout the text both terms can be used as synonyms.
• 31
  For reference, see footnote 22.
• 32
  GIDDENS, A. The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984.
• 33
  In Portuguese: “[...] à medida que os indivíduos agem no mundo, fazem uso de – e ao mesmo tempo recriam – estruturas sociais específicas.”
• 34
  BHASKAR, R. Reclaiming Reality: A Critical Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy. In: BHASKAR, R. Critical Realism, Social Relations and Arguing for Socialism. London: Routledge, 2010. pp.1-10.
• 35
  For reference, see footnote 23.
• 36
  For reference, see footnote 21.
• 37
  For reference, see footnote 22.
• 38
  The concept of discursive genre has been valuable in dialogical analyses, although used in different theoretical research lines. CDA, for example, utilizes different assumptions, such as the Social-Rhetorical (SWALES, 1990, MILLER, 1984) and genre analysis (BAZERMAN, 1988; BHATIA, 1993) for the phenomenon, as found in Fairclough (2003). However, even in that work, there is a dialogue with bakhtinian studies, especially in the use of the concept of dialogism, although no specific mention of the discursive genre is made. The same standpoint has been present in several critical genre analyses as proposed in Brazil (MEURER, 2002; MOTTA-ROTH, 2008; BONINI, 2010). However, more recently, CGA has been finding a more organic approach to the concept of genre in bakhtinian discussions, especially because such a perspective allows, with its simple taxonomy, for the observation of central aspects of the phenomenon, articulating textual and social aspects in the same concept.
• 39
  For reference, see footnote 22.
• 40
  For reference, see footnote 22.
• 41
  For reference, see footnote 22.
• 42
  For reference, see footnote 32.
• 43
  For reference, see footnote 22.
• 44
  The classification of utterances into complete utterance (enunciado-pleno) and framed utterance (enunciado-recorte) is proposed by Bonini (2004, our translation). In this perspective, complete utterance refers to the Bakhtinian utterance, with borders marked as proposed by Bakhtin (1986). Enunciado-recorte refers to the phenomena that presuppose borders not marked by turns, but by more general utterance instances. Thus, the delimitation of the framed utterance is not from an interlocutor who interacts within a conversation, for example (as would be the delimitation of the complete utterance, Bakhtinian), but from an observer who delimits the utterance through criteria from which he traces the beginning and end of an interactive ritual. In this case, a judicial hearing, for example, may have its boundaries marked at the moment the judge begins it and ends it, giving rise to the emergence (response, from the Bakhtinian dialogic point of view) of other framed utterances (conversation between lawyer and defendant) or even complete utterance (arrest warrant).
• 45
  Although the first interpretation for this observer is that he is the genre analyst who, in fact, will cut out the phenomenon that constitutes his object, there are other subjects here who take this position. Any interlocutor is capable of defining utterance boundaries to identify a meeting, a mass, a consultation, etc. In this case, this observer is not restricted to the researcher, but contemplates the knowledge that the interlocutors themselves possess about the genres in which they are involved.
• 46
  The stable aspects of discursive genres can be understood in terms of rules/resources, within the framework of Giddens’ structuration theory. As Meurer (2004, p.142, our translation) discusses, “The normative elements concern ‘sanctions to the modes of social conduct’ or ‘generalizable techniques or procedures applied to the implementation/reproduction of social life’.”
• 47
  Intercontextuality refers to the “condition in which two or more contexts interconnect and interpenetrate in a given social practice. In intercontextuality, one context is ‘taken’ to another context and characteristics of both are shared, often with the predominance of one over the other.” (MEURER, 2004, p.135, our translation).
• 48
  For reference, see footnote 22.
• 49
  For reference, see footnote 27.
• 50
  For reference, see footnote 27.
• 51
  BAKHTIN, M. M. / MEDVEDEV, P. N. The Elements of the Artistic Construction. In: BAKHTIN, M. M. / MEDVEDEV, P. N. The Formal Method in Literary Scholarship: A Critical Introduction to Sociological Poetics. Translated by Albert J. Wehrle. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978, pp.129-144.
• 52
  For reference, see footnote 27.
• 53
  For reference, see footnote 27.
• 54
  For reference, see footnote 27.
• 55
  For reference, see footnote 22.
• 56
  For reference, see footnote 27.
• 57
  For reference, see footnote 51.
• 58
  For reference, see footnote 27.
• 59
  For reference, see footnote 22.
• 60
  For reference, see footnote 22.
• 61
  FREIRE, P. Education: The Practice of Freedom. Londres: Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative, 1976.
• 62
  MASON, J. Qualitative Researching. London: SAGE Publications, 1998.
• 63
  For reference, see footnote 21.
• 64
  Name of the city is not disclosed due to the agreement signed with the participants in Termo de Compromisso Livre e Esclarecido (TCLE).
• 65
  The names of all participants (except the researcher) are fictitious due to the agreement signed via TCLE.
• 66
  Not informed.
• 67
  Given the limitations of space and scope of this article, I suggest that the reader consult Soares (2018) for further understanding of the research.
• 68
  In Portuguese: “Uma mulher só fica completa quando se casa e tem filhos.”
• 69
  In Portuguese: “Não sei como é que é as mães de vocês, mas a... a minha mãe, a história da minha mãe tem uma trajetória que é da porta da casa... pra dentro, tá? No mundo privado, tá? Pra família, pra horta dela, tá? E a minha mãe tá com setenta e três anos, cara, a vida dela passou e ela ficou nessa vida a vida inteira.”
• 70
  In Portuguese: “Ela não dirige, tá?... o pai dirige, ela não. Tem amigos no bar, nunca foi no bar, o pai tem amigos de tudo que é tipo de jeito, ele não fica em casa, sai de tarde, de manhã... e o pai tá com setenta e sete anos... setenta e seis... viaja e tal...”
• 71
  In Portuguese: “a vida dela é isso, tipo... e agora tô brigando com ela direto, porque eu quero que ela participe do grupo de idosos, ela pode... é... dançar... sair um pouco do foco da família, tá? Conviver um pouco pra fora...”
• 72
  For reference, see footnote 9.
• 73
  For reference, see footnote 9.
• 74
  At least in Giddens’ forethoughts regarding his context - Europe.
• 75
  In Portuguese: “ela talvez não se permitia parar e pensar se ela queria mesmo casar e ter filhos...”
• 76
  In Portuguese: “o que aconteceu lá, com a tua avó ou com a maioria não foi nem uma escolha, foi meio que um... uma pressão social.”
• 77
  In Portuguese: “Talvez não tinha... é... o poder de escolha e hoje em dia já tem.”
• 78
  For reference, see footnote 14.
• 79
  In Portuguese: “Esses tempos atrás aí ((risos)) eu postei uma foto no Facebook e a primeira pessoa a curtir foi minha vó ((risos)) E eu olhei e minha vó tem setenta e seis anos... ela tem Facebook, WhatsApp, ela manda ‘bom dia’.”
• 80
  In Portuguese: “eu perguntei pra ela [...] “Não quer criar os netos?” “Que criar neto o que...eles se cria... eu quero é viajar e...” Aí eu penso, tá? Há um tempo atrás aí... a minha vó no Facebook.”
• 81
  In Portuguese: “<mas>, eu fico assim meio de cara, sabe? Como é que pode, as coisas mudarem tão de repente assim?”
• 82
  In Portuguese: “ela se encaixou nessa modernidade, agora com essa tecnologia e tá indo, sabe?”
• 83
  For reference, see footnote 2.
• 84
  In Portuguese: “esses dias eu vi ela procurando uma receita no Google.”
• 85
  In Portuguese: “A mulher já anda na moda, tá? Já o homem é mais carrancudo.”

REFERENCES

• BAKHTIN, M. (VOLOCHÍNOV). Marxismo e filosofia da linguagem: problemas fundamentais do método sociológico da linguagem. Tradução de Michael Lahud e Yara Frateshi Viera com colaboração de Lúcia Teixeira Winsnik e Carlos Henrique D. Chagas Cruz. 16. ed. São Paulo: Hucitec, 2014.
• BAKHTIN, M. Os gêneros do discurso Organização, tradução posfácio e notas Paulo de Bezerra; notas da edição russa Serguei Botcharov. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2016.
• BAKHTIN, M. Problemas da poética de Dostiévski Tradução direta do russo, notas e prefácio de Paulo Bezerra. 5ª ed. Rio de Janeiro Forense Universitária, 2018.
• BAUBÉROT, A. Não se nasce viril, torna-se viril. In: CORBIN, A. COURTINE, J. J.; VIGARELO, G. História da virilidade Tradução Noeli Correa de Melo Sobrinho e Thiago de Abreu e Lima Florêncio, direção de volume Jean-Jacques Courtine. Vol. 3. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes, 2013, p.189-220.
• BAZERMAN, C. Shaping Written Knowledge: the Genre as Activity of Experimental Article in Science. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1988.
• BESSE, S. Modernizando a desigualdade: reestruturação da ideologia de gênero no Brasil, 1914-1940. Tradução de Lólio Lourenço Oliveira. São Paulo: Editora da Universidade de São Paulo, 1999.
• BHASKAR, R. Realismo crítico, relações sociais e argumentos para o socialismo. Tradução do capítulo (2005) de Astrid Baecker Avila; revisão (2006) de Mário Duayer (UFF) e Maria Célia Marcondes de Moraes (UFSC). In: BHASKAR, R. Reclaiming Reality: A Critical Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy. London: Verso, 1993.
• BHATIA, V. Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman, 1993.
• BONINI, A. Gênero textual/discursivo: o conceito e o fenômeno. In: CRISTOVÃO, V. L. L.; NASCIMENTO, E. L. (orgs.). Gêneros textuais: teoria e prática. Londrina, PR: Moriá, 2004, p.13-17.
• BONINI, A. Critical Genre Analysis and Professional Practice: The Case of Public Contests to Select Professors for Brazilian Public Universities. Linguagem em (dis)curso, v. 10, n. 3, pp.485-510, 2010. Disponível em https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1518-76322010000300004.Acesso em 25 de agosto, 2020.
  » https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1518-76322010000300004
• BONINI, A. Análise crítica de gêneros discursivos no contexto das práticas jornalísticas. In: SEIXAS, L.; PINHEIRO, N. F. (orgs.). Gêneros: um diálogo entre Comunicação e Linguística Aplicada. Florianópolis: Insular, 2013, p.103-120.
• CHOULIARAKI, L.; FAIRCLOUGH, N. Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999.
• CONNELL, R. W. Masculinidades México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2003.
• CONNELL, R. W. Políticas da masculinidade. Educação e realidade, n. 20 (2), p.185-206, jul./dez., 1995. Disponível em https://www.seer.ufrgs.br/educacaoerealidade/article/view/71725/40671.Acesso em 25 de agosto, 2020.
  » https://www.seer.ufrgs.br/educacaoerealidade/article/view/71725/40671
• CONNELL, R. W.; MESSERSCHIMIDT, J. W.; Masculinidade hegemônica: repensando o conceito In.: Revista de Estudos Feministas, Florianópolis, 21(1): 424, janeiro-abril/2013. Disponível em: https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/ref/article/view/S0104-026X2013000100014/24650.Acesso em 25 de agosto, 2020.
  » https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/ref/article/view/S0104-026X2013000100014/24650
• FAIRCLOUGH, N. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge, 2003.
• FAIRCLOUGH, N. Discurso e mudança social Coordenação de tradução, revisão técnica e posfácio Izabel Magalhães. Brasília: Editora UnB, 2001.
• FAIRCLOUGH, N.; JESSOP, B.; SAYER, A. Realismo crítico e semiose. Tradução de Gabriel Valdez Foscaches. Revista Letra Capital, v. 1 n. 1, p.43-69, jan./jun. 2016. Disponível em https://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/lcapital/article/view/8600/7159.Acesso em 25 de agosto, 2020.
  » https://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/lcapital/article/view/8600/7159
• FREIRE, P. Educação como prática de liberdade Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 2006.
• GIDDENS, A. The Constitution of Society Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984.
• GIDDENS, A. A transformação da intimidade: sexualidade, amor e erotismo nas sociedades modernas. Tradução Magda Lopes. São Paulo: Editora da Unesp, 1993.
• GIDDENS, A. As consequências da modernidade Tradução de Raul Fiker. São Paulo: Editora Unesp, 1991.
• GIDDENS, A. Modernidade e identidade Tradução de Plínio Dentzien. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar Ed., 2002.
• HANKS. W. Língua como prática social: das relações entre língua, cultura e sociedade a partir de Bourdieu e Bakhtin. Organização Anna Christina Bentes, Renato C. Rezende, Marco Antônio R. Machado. Revisão técnica Anna Christina Bentes, Maurizio Gnerre. Prefácio Maurizio Gnerre. São Paulo: Cortez, 2008.
• KIMMELL, M. A produção simultânea de masculinidades hegemônicas e subalternas. Horizontes Antropológicos, Porto Alegre, ano 4, n. 9, p.103-117, out. 1998. Disponível em https://www.scielo.br/pdf/ha/v4n9/0104-7183-ha-4-9-0103.pdf.Acesso em 25 de agosto, 2020
  » https://www.scielo.br/pdf/ha/v4n9/0104-7183-ha-4-9-0103.pdf
• MASON, J. Qualitative Researching London: SAGE Publications, 1998.
• MEURER, J. L. Uma dimensão crítica do estudo dos gêneros textuais. In: MEURER, J. L.; MOTTA-ROTH, D. Gêneros textuais e práticas discursivas: subsídios para o ensino da linguagem. Bauru: EDUSC, 2002, p.17-29.
• MEURER, J. L. Ampliando a noção de contexto na Linguística sistêmico-funcional e na Análise crítica do discurso. Linguagem em (Dis)curso, Tubarão, v. 4, n. Especial, p.133-157, 2004. Disponível em http://linguagem.unisul.br/paginas/ensino/pos/linguagem/linguagem-em-discurso/0403/040306.pdf.Acesso em 25 de agosto, 2020.
  » http://linguagem.unisul.br/paginas/ensino/pos/linguagem/linguagem-em-discurso/0403/040306.pdf
• MEDVIÉDEV, P.N. Os elementos da construção artística. In: MEDVIÉDEV, P.N. O método formal nos estudos literários: introdução crítica a uma poética sociológica. Tradução e nota das tradutoras Sheila Grillo e Ekaterina Vólkova Américo. Apresentação Beth Brait. Prefácio Sheila Vieira de Camargo Grillo. São Paulo: Contexto, 2016, p.193-207.
• MILLER, C. Genre as Social Action. Quartely Journal of Speech, vol. 70, p.151-176, 1984.
• MISKOLCI, R. O desejo de nação: masculinidade e branquitude no Brasil de fins do século XIX. São Paulo: Annablume, 2012.
• MOITA-LOPES, L. P.(org.). Por uma linguística aplicada indisciplinar São Paulo: Parábola, 2006.
• MOTTA-ROTH, D. Análise crítica de gêneros: contribuições para o ensino e a pesquisa de linguagem. DELTA, v. 24, n. 2, p.341-383, 2008. Disponível em https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-44502008000200007&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=pt.Acesso em 25 de agosto, 2020.
  » https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-44502008000200007&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=pt
• NOLASCO, S. A. O trabalho como base para a identidade. In: NOLASCO, S. A. O mito da masculinidade Rio de Janeiro: Rocco, 1993, p.50-72.
• RESENDE, V. Análise do discurso crítica e realismo crítico: implicações interdisciplinares. Campinas, SP: Pontes Editores, 2009.
• RODRIGUES, R. H. Os gêneros do discurso na perspectiva dialógica da linguagem. In: MEURER, J.L.; BONINI, A.; MOTTA-ROTH, D. (org.). Gêneros: teorias, métodos, debates. São Paulo: Parábola Editorial, 2005, p.152-183.
• SOARES, V. A. S. F. - Mas tem gente que não entende assim.// - É. É por isso que a gente tá aqui: a sessão de grupo socioeducativo para homens autores de violência contra a mulher e a (re)construção discursiva de masculinidades. 2018. 893f. Tese. (Doutorado em Linguística) – Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, 2018.
• SWALES, J. M. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
• WELZER-LANG, D. A construção do masculino: dominação das mulheres e homofobia. Revista de Estudos Feministas ano 9 462, p.461-482, 2º semestre, 2001. Disponível em https://www.scielo.br/pdf/ref/v9n2/8635.pdf.Acesso em 25 de agosto, 2020.
  » https://www.scielo.br/pdf/ref/v9n2/8635.pdf

APPENDIX A

Table 1 Transcription conventions

...	unmeasured stop or interruption
.	descending intonation or end of utterance
?	ascending intonation (question)
,	pause, continuity intonation
word	emphasis
CAPITAL	raised voice or a lot of emphasis
ºwordº	word or clause in low voice
>word<	faster enunciation
<word>	slower enunciation
:: or :::	extension
[word]	overlapping utterances
((incomprehensible))	utterance not comprehended
(word)	probable words
(( ))	analyst’s comment, description of non-verbal activity
“word”	reported speech, reconstruction of a dialogue
((laughs))	not discreet laughter or cackle
((laugh))	discreet laughter

Source: SOARES (2018), adapted from Jefferson in Garcez, Bulla and Loder (2014)

APPENDIX B

(01)

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  17 Sept 2021
• Date of issue
  July/Sept. 2021

History

• Received
  12 May 2020
• Accepted
  12 July 2021