Ir para o menu de navegação principal Ir para o conteúdo principal Ir para o rodapé
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Dossiê Temático

v. 5 n. 12 (2021): Mídia e Direitos Humanos: entre tematizações hegemônicas e sentidos em disputa

DIVERSIDADE RELACIONAL E OLHARES MEDIÁTICOS: uma década de representações jornalísticas de não-monogamias consensuais em Portugal

Enviado
novembro 7, 2021
Publicado
2021-12-28

Resumo

O contexto dos Direitos Humanos e da cidadania íntima (PLUMMER, 1995) é frequentemente usado para explorar o poliamor (CARDOSO, 2017) e outras formas de relacionamentos alternativos à mono-normatividade (PIEPER; BAUER, 2005). O activismo em torno destes temas tende a seguir de perto a agenda política traçada em primeira instância pela comunidade LGBTQ+, sendo algumas das suas expressões mais visíveis as que se alinham com a conquista de direitos dentro do contexto das democracias liberais (AVIRAM, 2010; AVIRAM; LEACHMAN, 2015; SANTIAGO, 2015). Estudar a forma como as Não-Monogamias Consensuais (NMCs) são representadas na imprensa permite compreender a cobertura do tema, a linguagem usada, os actores sociais mobilizados, e que conceitos são passados para o público em geral. Este artigo apresenta os resultados da análise da cobertura noticiosa sobre NMCs em Portugal, na imprensa escrita, entre 2010 e 2020, através de análise de conteúdo a 238 artigos, e permite compreender que, apesar de o poliamor ter entrado de forma generalizada no vocabulário comum, a agenda mediática parece pouco sensibilizada para com as actividades e publicações de activistas sobre NMCs em Portugal, demonstrando uma limitada capacidade destes em impactar a agenda mediática e contribuindo para um foco individualizante e potencialmente despolitizado. Isto, por sua vez, dificulta a integração da diversidade de orientação relacional como um elemento plenipotenciário da organização de identidades e comunidades íntimas e seus sujeitos como detentores de direitos políticos válidos.

 

Informações de financiamento     

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 84588

Referências

  1. AVIRAM, Hadar. Geeks, goddesses, and green eggs: Political mobilization and the cultural locus of the polyamorous community in the San Francisco Bay Area. Understanding non-monogamies. Routledge, 2010. p. 87–93.
  2. AVIRAM, Hadar. How Do Social Movements Decide to Move? Polyamorous Relationships and Legal Mobilization. SSRN Electronic Journal, 2005.
  3. AVIRAM, Hadar; LEACHMAN, Gwendolyn. The Future of Polyamorous Marriage: Lessons from the Marriage Equality Struggle. Harvard Journal of Law & Gender, v. 38, p. 269–336, 2015.
  4. BALZARINI, Rhonda N. et al. Dimming the “Halo” Around Monogamy: Re-assessing Stigma Surrounding Consensually Non-monogamous Romantic Relationships as a Function of Personal Relationship Orientation. Frontiers in Psychology, v. 9, n. 894, p. 1–13, 2018.
  5. BORGOGNA, Nicholas C.; AITA, Stephen L.; AITA, Lilah J. Minority stress in consensually non-monogamous individuals: mental health implications. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, p. 1–20, 2021.
  6. CARDOSO, Daniel. Amores plurais situados - Para uma meta-narrativa socio-histórica do poliamor. Tempo da Ciência, v. 25, n. 48, p. 12–29, 2017.
  7. CARDOSO, Daniel. Del amor a la amistad: la política de las relaciones. In: CENDAL, SANDRA (Org.). (h)amor2. Tradução Matilde Pérez. Madrid: Continta Me Tienes, 2015. p. 53–66.
  8. CARDOSO, Daniel. Ficção Científica (Social): as ténues fronteiras entre real e ficção. In: ROSA, JORGE MARTINS (Org.). Cibercultura e Ficção. Lisboa: Documenta, 2012. p. 203–214.
  9. CARDOSO, Daniel. My Spivak is bigger than yours: (Mis-)representations of polyamory in the Portuguese LGBT movement and mononormative rhetorics. LES Online, v. 6, n. 1, p. 45–64, 6 2014.
  10. CARDOSO, Daniel. Poliamor, ou Da Dificuldade de Parir um Meme Substantivo. Interact, n. 17, 1 mar. 2011. Disponível em: <http://interact.com.pt/17/poliamor/>.
  11. CARDOSO, Daniel. The Political Is Personal: The Importance of Affective Narratives in the Rise of Poly-activism. Sociological Research Online, v. 24, n. 4, p. 691–708, 2019.
  12. CARDOSO, Daniel; MARTINS, Inês Rôlo; COELHO, Salomé. Debating Polyamory as Research: an Auto-Ethnographic Account of a Round-Table on Polyamory and Lesbianism. LES Online, v. 5, n. 1, p. 20–34, 2013.
  13. CARDOSO, Daniel; PASCOAL, Patricia M.; MAIOCHI, Francisco Hertel. Defining polyamory: A thematic analysis of lay people’s definitions. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2021.
  14. CARDOSO, Daniel; PASCOAL, Patrícia M.; ROSA, Pedro J. Facing polyamorous lives: translation and validation of the attitudes towards polyamory scale in a Portuguese sample. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, v. 35, n. 1, p. 115–130, 2020.
  15. CARDOSO, Daniel; ROSA, Ana; SILVA, Marisa Torres Da. (De)Politicizing Polyamory: Social Media Comments on Media Representations of Consensual Non-Monogamies. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2021.
  16. CONLEY, Terri D. et al. The Fewer the Merrier?: Assessing Stigma Surrounding Consensually Non-monogamous Romantic Relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, v. 13, n. 1, p. 1–30, dez. 2013.
  17. DE LAS HERAS GÓMEZ, Roma. Thinking Relationship Anarchy from a Queer Feminist Approach. Sociological Research Online, 2018.
  18. DEGOOYER, Stephanie et al. The right to have rights. Verso Books, 2017.
  19. ENTMAN, R. M. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, v. 43, n. 4, p. 51–58, 1993.
  20. FOUCAULT, Michel. História da sexualidade 1: A Vontade de Saber. Lisboa: Relógio d’Água, 1994.
  21. GOULD, Terry. The Lifestyle: A Look at the Erotic Rites of Swingers. Toronto: Random House Inc, 1999.
  22. HANSEN, Anders et al. Content Analysis. Mass Communication Research Methods. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 1998. p. 91–129.
  23. HARAWAY, Donna. Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, v. 14, n. 3, p. 575–599, 1988.
  24. INFINITY_8P. Polyam Relationships Recognized in Somerville. 6 jul. 2020
  25. JOHNSON, Ruby Bouie. Editor’s Note: Black and Polyamorous. Journal of Black Sexuality and Relationships, v. 6, n. 2, p. vii–xiv, 2019.
  26. KIAN, Edward M; ANDERSON, Eric; SHIPKA, Danny. ‘I am happy to start the conversation’: Examining sport media framing of Jason Collins’ coming out and playing in the NBA. Sexualities, v. 18, n. 5–6, p. 618–640, 2015.
  27. KLESSE, Christian. Bisexual Women, Non-Monogamy and Differentialist Anti-Promiscuity Discourses. Sexualities, v. 8, n. 4, p. 445–464, 2005.
  28. KLESSE, Christian. Polyamory and its “Others”: Contesting the Terms of Non-Monogamy. Sexualities, v. 9, n. 5, p. 565–583, 2006.
  29. KLESSE, Christian. Toward a Genealogy of a Discourse on Women’s Erotic Autonomy: Feminist and Queer-Feminist Critiques of Monogamy. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, v. 44, n. 1, p. 205–231, 2018.
  30. KRAEMER, Christine Hoff. Contemporary Paganism, Utopian Reading Communities, and Sacred Nonmonogamy: The Religious Impact of Heinlein’s and Starhawk’s Fiction. Pomegranate, v. 13, n. 1, p. 52–76, 2011.
  31. KRIPPENDORFF, Klaus H. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. 2. ed. London; Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, 2003.
  32. MESQUITA, Mário. Percepções Contemporâneas do Poder dos Media. O Quarto Equívoco: O Poder dos Media na Sociedade Contemporânea. 2a ed. Coimbra: MinervaCoimbra, 2004. p. 71–88.
  33. MICHAELS, Mark A.; JOHNSON, Patricia. Designer relationships: a guide to happy monogamy, positive polyamory, and optimistic open relationships. Jersey City, NJ: Cleis Press, 2015.
  34. MOORS, Amy C. Has the American public’s interest in information related to relationships beyond “The Couple” increased over time? The Journal of Sex Research, v. 54, n. 6, p. 677–684, 2017.
  35. NEUENDORF, Kimberly A. The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, 2002.
  36. OBERCOM. Anuário da Comunicação 2020. . Lisboa: OberCom, jul. 2021. Disponível em: <https://obercom.pt/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Anuario_2020_final.pdf>.
  37. O’NEIL, Nena; O’NEIL, George. Open marriage: A new life style for couples. New York: Avon Publications, 1972.
  38. PHILO, Greg. News Content Studies, Media Group Methods and Discourse Analysis: A Comparison of Approaches. Media Studies: Key Issues and Debates. London: SAGE Publications, 2007. p. 101–133.
  39. PIEPER, Marianne; BAUER, Robin. Polyamory und Mono-Normativität. Ergebnisse einer empirischen Studie über nicht-monogame Lebensformen. In: MÉRITT, LAURA (Org.). Mehr als eine Liebe: polyamouröse Beziehungen. Berlin: Orlanda, 2005. p. 59–69.
  40. PILÃO, Antonio Cerdeira. Entre a liberdade e a igualdade: princípios e impasses da ideologia poliamorista. Cadernos Pagu, n. 44, p. 391–422, 2015.
  41. PILÃO, Antonio Cerdeira. Quando o amor é o problema: feminismo e poliamor em debate. Revista Estudos Feministas, v. 27, n. 3, 2019.
  42. PLUMMER, Ken. Telling Sexual Stories: Power, Change and Social Worlds. New York: Routledge, 1995.
  43. POLYPORTUGAL. “Poliamor” reconhecida como palavra oficial. PolyPortugal - Poliamor em Português. Disponível em: <http://polyportugal.blogspot.com/2014/10/poliamor-reconhecida-como-palavra.html>. Acesso em: 7 nov. 2021. , 11 out. 2014
  44. PONTE, Cristina. Leituras das notícias: contributos para uma análise do discurso jornalístico. Lisboa: Livros Horizonte, 2004.
  45. PORTO, Duina. Mononormatividade, intimidade e cidadania. Revista Direito GV, v. 14, n. 2, p. 654–681, 2018.
  46. RAMBUKKANA, Nathan. Fraught intimacies: non/monogamy in the public sphere. Vancouver ; Toronto: UBC Press, 2015.
  47. RIBEIRO, Djamila. Lugar de fala. São Paulo: Sueli Carneiro, 2019.
  48. RICHARDS, Tom. NVivo. QSR International, 2018. Disponível em: <http://www.qsrinternational.com/products_nvivo.aspx>.
  49. RITCHIE, Ani. Discursive constructions of polyamory in mono-normative media culture. Understanding non-monogamies. [S.l.]: Routledge, 2010. p. 46–54.
  50. RITCHIE, Ani; BARKER, Meg-John. “There Aren’t Words for What We Do or How We Feel So We Have To Make Them Up”: Constructing Polyamorous Languages in a Culture of Compulsory Monogamy. Sexualities, v. 9, n. 5, p. 584–601, 2006.
  51. ROSA, Becky. Anti-Monogamy: A Radical Challenge to Compulsory Heterosexuality? In: GRIFFIN, GABRIELE et al. (Org.). Stirring it: challenges for feminism. Feminist perspectives on the past and present. London; Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis, 1994. p. 107–120.
  52. ROSENGREN-HOVEE, Evelyn. United States of Monogamy. 2021. MA in Arts – University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, 2021.
  53. ROTHSCHILD, Leehee. Compulsory Monogamy and Polyamorous Existence. Graduate Journal of Social Science, v. 14, n. 1, p. 28–56, 2018.
  54. RUBEL, Alicia N; BURLEIGH, Tyler J. Counting polyamorists who count: Prevalence and definitions of an under-researched form of consensual nonmonogamy. Sexualities, v. 23, n. 1–2, p. 3–27, 2020.
  55. RUBIN, Gayle. Thinking Sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In: PARKER, RICHARD; AGGLETON, PETER (Org.). Culture, Society and Sexuality: A Reader. 2. ed. New York: Routledge, 2007. p. 150–187.
  56. RYAN, Christopher; JETHÁ, Cacilda. Sex at Dawn: the Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality. 1st. ed. New York: Harper, 2010.
  57. SANTIAGO, Rafael da Silva. Poliamor e direito das famílias: reconhecimento e consequências jurídicas. Curitiba: Juruá, 2015.
  58. SANTOS, Ana Cristina. ‘In the old days, there were no gays’ – democracy, social change and media representation of sexual diversity. International Journal of Iberian Studies, v. 29, n. 2, p. 157–172, 2016.
  59. SANTOS, Ana Cristina. One at a time: LGBTQ polyamory and relational citizenship in the 21st century. Sociological Research Online, v. 24, n. 4, p. 709–725, 27. 2019.
  60. SAVAGE, Dan. Monogamish. Savage Love. Disponível em: <https://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=9125045>. Acesso em: 20 jul. 2021. , 20 jul. 2011
  61. SAXEY, Esther. Non-Monogamy and Fiction. In: BARKER, MEG; LANGDRIDGE, DARREN (Org.). Understanding Non-Monogamies. Routledge, 2010. p. 23–33.
  62. SCHECHINGER, Heath; SAKALUK, John; MOORS, Amy. Harmful and helpful therapy practices with consensually non-monogamous clients: Toward an inclusive framework. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, v. 86, n. 11, p. 879–891, 2018.
  63. SCHIPPERS, Mimi. Beyond Monogamy: Polyamory and the Future of Polyqueer Sexualities. New York: NYU Press, 2016.
  64. SCHIPPERS, Mimi. Polyamory, Monogamy, and American Dreams: The Stories We Tell about Poly Lives and the Cultural Production of Inequality. London ; New York: Routledge, 2019.
  65. SHEILL, Kate. Sexual rights are human rights. In: CORNWALL, ANDREA; CORRÊA, SONIA; JOLLY, SUSIE (Org.). . Development with a body: sexuality, human rights and development. London; New York: Zed Books, 2008. p. 45–53.
  66. SILVA, Gislene. Para pensar critérios de noticiabilidade. Estudos em Jornalismo e Mídia, v. 2, n. 1, p. 95–107, 1 jan. 2005.
  67. SILVÉRIO, Maria. Swing em Portugal: uma interpretação antropológica da troca de casais. Etnográfica. Revista do Centro em Rede de Investigação em Antropologia, n. vol. 18 (3), p. 551–574, 2014.
  68. TORRES DA SILVA, Marisa. As cartas dos leitores na imprensa portuguesa. Covilhã: Livros LabCom, 2014.
  69. TRAQUINA, Nelson. Jornalismo: questoes, teorias e “estórias”. Lisboa: Vega, 1993.
  70. VALADEZ, Adrian M. et al. Perceived Stigmatization and Disclosure among Individuals in Consensually Nonmonogamous Relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, n. n/a, 16 jan. 2020.
  71. VASALLO, Brigitte. Pensamiento monógamo, terror poliamoroso. La Oveja Roja, 2018.
  72. VASALLO, Brigitte. Sobre la monogamia. Disponível em: <http://www.eldiario.es/zonacritica/monogamia_6_275832426.html>. Acesso em: 6 nov. 2016.
  73. WATSON, Brian M.; STEIN LUBRANO, Sarah. “Storming then Performing”: Historical Non-Monogamy and Metamour Collaboration. Archives of Sexual Behavior,, maio 2021.
  74. WEEKS, Jeffrey; HEAPHY, Brian; DONOVAN, Catherine. Same sex intimacies: families of choice and other life experiments. London ; New York: Routledge, 2001.