Abstract

ABSTRACTCreated under the government of Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in 2009, the National Policy for the Inclusion of Homeless People in Brazil was implemented at a time of unprecedented federal political concern on the public debate of homelessness. In 2012, Federal District was the first unit in the federation to formally join this National Policy. In this paper, with theoretical basis in the version of critical discourse analysis initially formulated by Fairclough, we focus on the uses of language in an inter-sectorial and paritary committee different sectors of government and government and civil society) created in this context. The committee was formed in order to track and monitor the Policy for the Inclusion of Homeless People in the Federal District. Articulating the concept of public sphere by Habermas, we discuss the 2013 implementation of the Inter-Sectorial Committee for Monitoring the Policy for the Inclusion of Homeless People in the Federal District. In the Brazilian case, one can say we are facing a favorable occasion for the consolidation of public sphere in the debate over homelessness, and for establishing public policies confronting it. The problem here is the difficulty to maintain, given the peculiarities of people who have dealt with homelessness and their previous relationships with government institutions, an effective dialogue, without which the public sphere is put at risk. This problem has discursive facets: even though parity committees are formed, how does one ensure the effective participation of people in homelessness in these discussions? What discursive barriers could there be to an effective public sphere in this case? Discussing this conjuncture and the particular practice it promotes in the Federal District, we reflect on the implications of power relations, discursively performed, on the effectiveness of the public sphere in this arena. Since we participate in the committee as representatives of the Permanent Forum of the Homeless Population in the Federal District, we take three committee meetings, held in 2013, to analyze discursive strategies, reflecting upon how they restrict the dialogic potential of the committee through instantiated genres, discourses and styles.