3.8 Article

Co-authoring speeches, constructing collective identity: Brazilian youth movements from ethnographic and discursive analytic perspectives

Journal

ETHNOGRAPHY AND EDUCATION
Volume 17, Issue 3, Pages 293-313

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17457823.2022.2057806

Keywords

Social movements and education; youth activism; ethnography; discourse analysis; digital methods; race and collective identity; Brazil

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article examines the organization and politicization process of youth movements in Brazil, with a focus on a public hearing held in 2019 to defend race- and class-based affirmative action. Through discursive analysis, it is found that youth activists shape a sense of belonging and generate movement power by emphasizing collective identity, developing audience co-authorship, and co-constructing chants.
Youth movements rose in Brazil in the past decade, fighting for equitable access to education alongside plural - anti-capitalist, anti-racist, and feminist - struggles. This article examines interactions by which Brazilian youth activists organise, politicise, and define who constitutes a movement. It focuses on a 2019 public hearing to defend race- and class-based affirmative action. Taking a discursive analytic approach situated within a broader ethnographic study, the findings highlight the collective nature of youth practices and identity. Youth activists shape a sense of belonging by emphasising 'we' and 'us' pronouns in a speech; develop audience co-authorship as they listen and chant together; and co-construct chants before initiating them in the crowd. The analysis contributes to understanding hybrid (on- and offline), multimodal educational practices and interactions in movements as youth articulate race, generation/age, class, and place. In doing so, youth construct collective identity and generate movement power.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available