| dc.description.abstract | Based on the existence of narrative disputes about the period of the brazilian civil-military dictatorship since the civil-military coup on March 31, 1964, with a significant rise with the growth of bolsonarism, this dissertation aims to analyze two decisions of the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court on the possibility of institutional commemoration of March 31, 1964 by the federal government in 2019 and 2020. Such decisions, in the Monochratic Decision of Writ nº 36.380/DF and the Lifting of the Injunction nº 1.326/RN, are shown to be consectary of the disputed narratives in question, since the Court was urged, for the first time in a direct manner, to analyze the contention. Therefore, this work intends to analyze which historical narratives were printed in the decision, taking into consideration the existence of three communities of memory with greater relevance in the dispute, according to historiography itself, which are the community with a hegemonic narrative about the period after the re-democratization, the historiographical community, and the community with a positive narrative about the coup and/or the dictatorship, as well as what would be the normative implications of the narratives employed. In order to undertake such an analysis, and avoiding the possible risks of incurring in a tribunalization of history, in which a supposed legal truth supplants historical truth, or in history as a court of law, electing absolute and cathedral truths - this dissertation resorted to Critical Theory of the Constitution, which understands constitutionality as constituted by temporality, so that History and Law articulate themselves in a tense and complex manner without disregarding the ethical-epistemological assumptions of each area of knowledge. We also resorted to the Philosophy of History when recognizing the importance of historiographical pluralism to confront absolutized truths, as well as the importance of understanding that, despite such pluralism, historical narrative is not unlimited, not to be confused with fiction. In developing these theoretical assumptions, we proposed the use of the analytical keys historical revisionism, ideological revisionism, and historical negationism for the analysis of the narratives belonging to the memory communities analyzed. In this sense, it was understood, in general terms, historical revisionism as a process inherent to the making of historiography, being ideological revisionism and historical negationism examples of historical distortions not belonging, therefore, to the condition of science. It was verified that the community with a hegemonic narrative after the redemocratization has a predominantly ideological revisionist account. The historiographical community, on the other hand, has an account linked to historical revisionism, and the community with a positive narrative about the coup and the dictatorship has a mostly historical negationist account. In analyzing the decisions from these perspectives, it was possible to observe that both of them carry, fundamentally, arguments linked to distortions of history. The normative framework observed was the existence of an underlying historical negation in both decisions, incurring in unconstitutionality: they do not understand the 1988 Constitution as a break from the civil-military dictatorship initiated by the date to which they allowed the commemoration, thus casting the Constitution against its own foundations. | |
