Sobre o amor que "não" ousa dizer o nome

Abstract

The herein work focuses on homosexuality in three short stories written by Caio Fernando de Abreu, published in 1982, in the book called Morangos Mofados: Terça-feira gorda, Além do ponto e Aqueles dois. The analysis of homosexuality is done based on Michel Pêcheux s postulations about discourse, interdiscourse, intradiscourse, discursive memory, discursive formation, conditions of discourse production and subject, on Michel Foucault s propositions about discourse, contradiction, discursive formation, subject, resistance, power and author, on Authier-Revuz s postulations related to the notion of subject and of enunciative heterogeneity and based on two questions focused by Stuart Hall, Tomaz Tadeu da Silva and Kathryn Woodward: identity ad difference. The approach used is the interpretative-quantitative one. Taking into consideration homosexuality and the theories used during this research, the following questions were raised: how is the homosexual discourse?; how does a homosexual materialize his discourse about his own sexuality?; how does he mean homosexuality?. Before the previous questions, we raised the hypothesis that homosexual discourse, even trying to mean homosexuality in a positive way, without prejudice, is affected by discourses that circulate on society and that represent homosexuality in a negative way and that give a negative meaning to this question: homosexual discourse is affected by its difference. Before the hypothesis, we aim at realizing the way homosexual theme takes place on the short stories, how homosexuality appears on them; we aim at detecting how prejudice appears on the short stories; we aim at bringing different voices (discourses) with their different discursive and ideological formation about homosexuality to try to detect how the subjects mean homosexuality throughout their discourses and how these subjects are meant by homosexuality, how their positions are in relation to homosexuality and how they constitute themselves subjects; we aim at analyzing the different voices (discourses) trying to show that there is not a individualistic subjectivity on these voices, but, on the contrary, there is a collective subjectivity. Last but not least, we aim at showing that the difference (the Other) is the constituent exterior of the subject, of his discourse and of his identity. We could realize, throughout this research, that the hypothesis and the objectives were achieved.