Narrativas em disputa no caso Maria da Penha : estudo comparado entre a autobiografia sobrevivi...posso contar e o podcast pela fechadura

Abstract

This study addresses divergent narratives constructed around the true case of domestic violence suffered by Maria da Penha, based on two distinct discursive productions. The objective is to analyze the argumentative and rhetorical strategies present in conflicting versions of the violence suffered by Maria da Penha Maia Fernandes, using as a corpus the autobiographical book Sobrevivi... posso contar (Penha, 2010) and the podcast episode Pela Fechadura – caso Maria da Penha (Ventura, 2023), available on the YouTube channel Não Minta Pra Mim. Specifically, this research seeks to identify and compare valid and invalid arguments mobilized in the discourses; analyze the construction of ethos as a means of persuasion in the examined works; and reflect on the influence of gender stereotypes in the podcast's discourse. Given this, we are guided by the following problem-questions: what are the argumentative and rhetorical strategies used by Maria da Penha and her ex-husband in the analyzed works? How are these strategies used to persuade the audience and legitimize different versions of the violence case in question? How does each version build the speaker's credibility, i.e., their ethos? Does the podcast Pela Fechadura – Caso Maria da Penha reinforce negative gender stereotypes? Methodologically, the research is qualitative-interpretative in nature and bibliographic in character. Theoretical support was drawn from studies by Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (2014), Aristotle (2011), Mateus (2018), Amossy (2016a, 2016b), Reboul (2004), among others. With their contribution and based on our analysis, it was possible to observe that the argumentative strategies mobilized in the two objects of study were constructed in distinct ways and produced opposite discursive effects. While the autobiography was grounded in valid arguments that support the account of all violence suffered by the victim in a coherent and legitimate manner, the podcast, in contrast, revealed an attempt to disqualify Penha's narrative through arguments that proved to be inconsistent and fallacious.