O jurídico e o ideológico a partir de Michel Pêcheux e Louis diferença e repetição da ideologia dominante (reprodução-transformação) em votos de ministros do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF)

Abstract

The theme of this Thesis is the relationship of reproduction–transformation, difference, and repetition of the dominant ideology in legal discourse, delimited by the judgment of Extraordinary Appeal No. 635,659, and the subsequent application by the Judiciary of the thesis established in that judgment regarding drug possession, in light of the analysis of the unconstitutionality of Article 28 of the Drug Law No. 11,343/2006. The study further examines, in a second stage, the discourse of judges in their materially technical practices permeated by ideology. The general objective of the research is to analyze the discursive functioning of the votes of the Justices of the Supreme Federal Court concerning the criminalization of drugs, as well as to analyze the discursive functioning of the effects of this judgment on the studied social formation. Regarding the theoretical basis, this research is grounded in Pêcheux’s (2014) Discourse Analysis, a materialist theory of discourse, in dialogue with the critical (macrosociological) materialist criminological tradition, known as “Critical Criminology” (in a broad sense), represented by Anitua (2008) and Batista (2020). As for the method, the research employs dialectical historical materialism, being sustained by a qualitative interpretivist approach. The theoretical and methodological principles of Discourse Analysis involve recognizing the historical and ideological dimensions inscribed in the discursive object, with dialectical historical materialism applied to comprehend the effects of meaning produced. The results were significant for the qualitative analysis of the absence of total ideological repetition within the legal field, revealing a limited functional viability. Structural limits and contradictions were identified, but there remains space for potential resistance and differences materialized in the discursive practices of judges, with the studied social consequences.