Enunciated-body

The body cannot be delimited in a universal theory or concept without presenting flaws or refutations, so we take as our direction what Le Breton (2011, p. 139, own translation) points out about the description that each person has before him countless possibilities and “[...] from one to another without ever finding the one that is entirely convenient” in a constant flow of search for his own lost body. The body, in this way, is more like a ship than a port, revealing movements, repositioning, transitions, contradictions and desires, dislodging itself and lodging in the fabric of everyday life (^{LOURO, 2008}) according to logics not always programmable or likely.

^{Hall (2004)} meets this mobile definition of the body when he defends that identity, anchored in corporealities, unified and crystallized is nothing more than a fantasy, since we can temporarily identify ourselves, at least, with some other identity: black, faggot, cis man, transvestite, young, fat etc. Multiple crossings coupled in a body, in an ‘I’. Transvestites, for example, are also found in this quicksilver universe, as they can identify themselves as women, transsexuals, transgender or transvestites at the same time as heterosexuals, bisexuals, blacks, indigenous people etc. And there is no ‘problem’ in this, since modern societies can be defined as “[...] societies of constant, rapid and permanent change” (^{HALL, 2004}, p. 14, own translation), the question should not be how we think about it, but how they think about themselves.

The body, added to the identifications, is built in this world-system as a kind of enunciation, of discursiveness and of narratives that dialogue with itself, with other people and with the world. However, the norms are established by devices that, in turn, are linked to notions of power, reveal themselves to be discourses, such as epistemes, but also as in other modes: laws, interdicts, constructions, regulations etc., orchestrated in a network (^{FOUCAULT, 1979}). They strategically operate in a concrete way, being products of power and knowledge reactions, but never as a fixed existence, but as a system in a universe more or less organized, precisely because they allow for the changes that may arise (^{CHIGNOLA, 2014}).

The bodies are also targets of the devices and we think of them as instruments of the same, since all this orchestration focuses on/for them. Thus, these bodies represent and reveal their discursiveness of themselves, their postures established under narratives and histories amalgamated throughout their existences, implying in the positioning we call body as discourse, a body - enunciated. If a statement (body) can gain validity and existence status within the norm, the opposite is also possible thanks to the knowledge structures and powers involved in the devices.

These knowledges dictate and interdict the enunciations that they so desire, even provoking the erasure of the enunciated bodies under the resource of desenunciation, a concept that we pirate from the discussions of Ouellet (1984). The author uses the concept to discuss how sciences select what they want to give turn/voice, their procedures for what they want to unravel, erasing the layers of presuppositions or proto-enunciate (the surfaces) until the interactive device remains. Because it is a notion of piracy of term, in the wake perhaps of a subversion, we use it inferring the idea that the device system of the standard acts as a kind of magnifying glass that does not amplify the layers observed in an attempt to understand the surfaces, otherwise these surfaces would be the subjectivities amalgamated to the corporealities, for example, but that the instrument arbitrarily erases leaving on display the product known as the person, the individual, a license plate, a data, a neutral body.

This desenunciation is part of the communicative game of devices in order to elaborate and echo knowledge about the unaccepted, laughable, impossible or ‘abnormal’ enunciated bodies, inciting punishments promoted by the system of protection of private property (^{FOUCAULT, 2015}). The universal body is configured as a principle of private property and a necessary paradigm for the ordering of society, revealing bourgeois principles by the control of all discursiveness that tries to escape the programmed.

If the genesis of this system of control is amalgamated with private property, it becomes clear which bourgeois interests are aimed at and which possible targets are listed to be in the sights of a state for death. Perhaps it also reveals how bureaucratic practices articulate themselves giving more power to the maintenance of private property under the enunciations, or better(?), how state enunciate bodies use the bureaucratic-police system in order to ‘adapt’ transvestite enunciate bodies. One of these forms is desenunciation.

The desenunciation would be a tacit denuding within and from all systems, but they can come from you or from someone else. The person can strategically unveil itself for various purposes: survival, employability, sexuality etc., with the aim of leaving a palatable nucleus to the encompassing system. This system, from formal education, and even before it, requires a way to exist, generally guided by curricula and other educational devices.

Pierre ^{Ouellet (2002)}, for example, employs it to discuss the instabilities of scientific statements in which the desenunciations reign, even if on the surface but maintaining the core, or the interational devices, preserved (^{PAVEAU, 2010}). The denuding exercises the annihilation of the layers of subjectivity (color, sex, gender, age, ethnicity, social class and religiosity) that, added together, represent the ‘I’ of people, leaving only a minimal nuclear structure as a number in the classroom call or a registration of any institution, dismissing as much as possible in the same measure that establishes control. This desenunciation is anchored in the enunciations, in the verbal productions that do not respect the linearities and pass through a myriad of contextual filters before hitting the target, even if they remain in the binary of space-time (^{PAVEAU, 2010}).

[...] the descriptions of context, this element necessary for any interpretation of enunciations from the communicational perspective, are generally anthropocentric, in the sense that they privilege non-material human data such as culture, sociological data, history, in short, a whole representative world that makes little of cases of material realities. (^{PAVEAU, 2010}, p. 20, own translation).

If desenunciation is anchored in anthropocentric paradigms and articulated in such a way that immersions are considered, it is possible to hypothesize that these same contextual descriptions, printed on the bodies, are also their own antithesis: compulsory erasure. The body, which has already been taken as a ‘Cartesian mechanism’ or a finite biological apparatus, for example, is also constituted as an immersed linguistic structure in the political field in which any and every power relation reaches it, marking it, directing it, imploring it (^{FOUCAULT, 1987}). It is a enunciate studded with signs and meanings, a narrative that can suffer the intermittent actions of existence-inexistence, such as transvestites, which can be understood by the State only body (the nucleus), but drawn from its identities (the surface) in such a way that only it remains. And, yet, the remaining body will be a product that will suffer constant control and surveillance. We do not question the foucaultian possibilities of resistance and counterpower, but this structure of enunciations that instrumentalize a desenunciation.

The ways in which we think politically about our existences were based on relations of both collective and individual measures, which seems to have emptied over a century ago. This posture seems to have generated a depletion of resources to think about the identities and ways of enunciation and experience of the other person and ourselves, fracturing the foundations of equality or unity (^{OUELLET, 2002}). The idea of singularity, for example, according to ^{Ouellet (2002)}, in discussion with the notion of community would not solve the ‘problems’, especially because, according to the author, the etymology of the word ‘singular’ means unique, bizarre, strange, anomalous, rare, exceptional and surprising, understanding every body that is outside the norm and singularized by it.

The singular, being far away or separated, would be a kind of solitary animal, being retired and being on the edge more or less distant from the city, where the borders and limits of our urban or our common space are lost in the darkest and densest forests. (^{OUELLET, 2002}, p. 12, own translation).

We understand that the demarcation of what is singular (anomalous) is deliberately swallowed up by the systems of hegemonic enunciations so that its existence is also absorbed by desenunciation. In the same way that the enunciation is structured in a non-neutral way, it uses cultural relations, many times paradoxical, to fade temporally a certain phenomenon or subject.

^{Foucault (1979}, p. 247) calls the devices elaborated as a ploy to direct which statements will emerge as acceptable within the fields of scientificity, inducing to affirm that the device allows “separating not the true from the false, but the scientifically unqualified from the qualified”.

We add that the same is true for the subjects, since they are also in the order of phenomena, which does not guarantee that these theorizations cover what one wishes to disentangle, since it is not a question of delimiting a field of scientificities, but which corporealities will receive the seal of (un)qualifying or even the demarcation of improper, inconsistent, maladjusted or reproved, and will only be removed by the systems of devices in layers until leaving, perhaps, only the nucleus exposed, at most. In other words, desenunciation arbitrarily extracts from people their identities, anchored in the discourses legitimized as hegemonic and which already existed before our existence, but which affect us and are realized in us in materiality (^{ORLANDI, 2009}).

Travestite

The possibilities in thinking of intersections between desenunciation and various instances are countless, as when the blackness of the subject is considered to the point of leaving only a specific nucleus without its specificities, leaving only the person (‘equal’ to the others). Another example, and here target of our cis-temic discussions, would be the transvestite. We call them cis-temicas because they refer to a demarcated cis position in our bodies, namely, the confluence between the biological apparatuses of male and female represented in the fictions of the male and female genders. As we are authors cis bringing a cutout about transvestites to exemplify our analysis, we fear, once again, to speak of what we are not or experience within this other cutout called society, however, our motto of discussion is still based on the educational articulations detailed in this same society, formatted according to devices, here thinking of the definitions of ^{Foucault (1979)}, able to build, exclude, demarcate, promote or even imprison.

The device, according to ^{Foucault (1979)}, is also in the category of more general epistemes, being the result of a diverse sum of elements that constitute it, however, not a simple addition closed in an epistemic order of what can be said, announced. This notion of device, yet, is a relationship under which knowledges feed on knowledges in a kind of constant (re)elaboration machinery.

The transvestites, as the focus of our cutout, are also allocated in the systems of knowledge, articulating themselves to them, either in a combative way or as economic-political structures to exist. These knowledges, as mentioned, feed on knowledges and produce others, emerging positions of transvestites about transvestites. As a way to discuss the concepts about them, we selected theorizations from transvestites and researchers such as Adriana ^{Sales (2012)}, Amara Moira ^{Rodovalho (2017)} and Amanda ^{Palha (2018)}.

For Adriana (^{SALES, 2012}), transvestites can present their identities in both the feminine and masculine universe, which allows multiple locations of themselves, however, as the author describes, transvestites transcend some elements that built them biologically, socially and politically, singularizing them deeply, even if the other people around them only understand them in an abstract way.

Amara Moira ^{Rodovalho (2017)}, when analyzing the various responses offered by transvestites on the definitions of themselves, reveals the inexistence of a unique way on self-identification, since it also connects to the negotiations elaborated by each one of them. There is no transvestite education, according to the author, since we are educated to be necessarily in one of the two sociobiological poles: male - male or female - woman.

So, the transvestite category is part of the gender, as stated by Amanda ^{Palha (2018)}, besides belonging to the universe of being a woman along with her specificities, a “woman with a dick” (^{PALHA, 2018}; LINN DA QUEBRADA, 2018), for example. These possibilities of speaking and saying about themselves show the resistance to the scientific knowledge demarcated by the notions of the cis body, that is, that demarcated by the confluence between sex and gender, believed to be within ‘normality’.

The exclusion from the transvestite category, when the deliberate use of articles, of male names (when not part of their choice) and other actions, is configured as desenunciation, that is, an exercise resulting from diverse devices that act as instruments of detachment from subjectivities and objectivities. These are blows meticulously administered so that the identity, the anomalous, the wild or the strange, remains on the margin without being glimpsed. The exercise, then, would be in the sense of emptying an existence, its biography to the point of leaving the minimum substratum of being.

As an example, we bring brief analyses of a journalistic ad about transvestites in which there is the tacit exercise of erasing their subjectivities as the case of Andrielly Vogue, arrested in 2008 in Curitiba and accused of damage to public property.

Since his arrest, the transvestite has been through three cells. First he was sent to the Triage Center of Piraquara, in the metropolitan region of Curitiba, where he had his hair shaved. Then he was transferred to the Detention Center of Bairro Ahú and is now in the men’s ward of the São José dos Pinhais Detention Center, where he shares the cell with 12 other male inmates. According to a letter from the PT lawyers published in Fábio Campana’s blog, the police say they shaved the transvestite’s head as a measure to prevent diseases. And that the procedure would be standard on the spot, with no intention of humiliating the inmates. (^{BEM PARANÁ, 2017}, s/p, our emphasis).

Andrielly’s identity was not considered, as the legal provisions suggest, which adds to the fact that she had her hair shaved under the hygienist argument and that there would be no deception to it. However, the allegation is flawed and is an instrument of abuse, since it violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (2009, w/o) in its article 5: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Shaving the hair is not necessary under the argument of hygiene, because women in detention do not go through the same process. What we have is an abuse of authority imbricated in a kind of aggressive rite of disunity. Andrielly, when entering the prison system, ends up serving a sentence greater than her infraction, since she goes through the process of demoralization in front of society without any constitutional support (^{MARINHO, 2017}).

The article used in the masculine one calls the attention in the passage of the report, not because transvestites cannot use by or for themselves, but for the deliberative use without any consultative proposal with them. Perhaps we can incur in this same proposal when discussing transvestility and provisions, however, one of the proposals is to think of instruments used according to the purpose of erasure, which is also true for youth, blackness, the elderly etc.

Returning to Andrielly’s case, the discourse about the transvestite’s hair points to other speeches. ^{Orlandi (2009)} describes that the discourses connect to other factors, such as the senses, and there is no absolute beginning or even closure. The discourse, the author repeats, is a saying that relates to other “accomplished, imagined or possible sayings” (^{ORLANDI, 2009}, p. 39, own translation). The discourse that it desensitizes is affixed in relations of forces, part of who professes it and echoes in a different way according to who the person is, thus, the ‘weight’ of the discourse attaches itself to the hierarchical system of society, conjuring up a discursive escalation in this structure of relations of force, according to ^{Orlandi (2009)}. Thus, the speech of one person can mean more than the speech of another in the hierarchical social system, like the speech of someone in the prison administrative system in relation to an imprisoned person.

^{Orlandi (2009}, p. 40) argues that it is not the subjects or places, physically speaking, that promote the functioning in discourse, but “their images that result from projections”. This imaginary is effective and not nihilistic, it is linked to the functioning of language and is imbricated in social relations and power. By using the example of transvestite Andrielly, with the use of the male article in the report, added to the act of cutting the hair when arrested, we have a material mechanism (reporting, imprisonment, body/identity) and the imaginary (the dangerous transvestite that needs to be adequate). Both linked to the processes of desenunciation and to the service of power structures leading to the ways in which the State acts.

However, transvestites are independent of the state to exist. They articulate themselves, according to aesthetic-bellicose positions or hacking, in order to promote their possible existences within an educational system. Whether in a school or prison space, they end up finding possibilities to promote shake-ups within the formal structures of education. These quakes, which can be called resistance, are the fruit of another system, outlined, for example, by a lesser education (^{GALLO, 2002}). Resistance to the desenunciation system “promotes a politics of daily life, of direct relations between individuals, which in turn have effects on social macro-relations” (^{GALLO, 2002}, p. 175, own translation). The friction between a macro-organized and suffocating state education and the escapade education, but still bellicose, reveals the power structures architected by both sides.

While non-negotiable systems operate within state logic, enunciated bodies outside the norm operate by conjuring up means of not losing their subjectivities and existences, creating means and mechanisms that are not just a number or a statistical data. As already mentioned, our idea was not to bring empirical positions about these elusive operations, but possible analytical instruments of a power structure operating alongside the macro state system.

Considerations

The desenunciation, as a proposal that we launch in front of the existence of enunciated bodies, can be observed according to a strategic logic in order to strip a person of all his subjectivities and objectivities to the point of leaving a kind of nucleus. This nucleus, for example, would only be summarized as a body, a registration or a subject. Bodies-enunciated, like those of transvestites, are more than a nucleus free of particularities, since they bring a myriad of processes from themselves. In the cutout brought by the transvestites in front of the political-state universe, we perceive a kind of arbitrary and toxic education that focuses on certain bodies and/or identities.

This toxic movement represents an artifice of the state machinery, strongly anchored in the universality of education, whether formal or not. Education, in this way, would be/is in favor of a fictional society according to punctually established dictates of what is property and its rights, bodies, norms, therefore, the correct and licit. It is also this structure, education, that receives the project of educating bodies for society and all its procedures imbricated, whether in the universe of formal work, or in the patterns of behavior of bodies. Thus, bodies are the fruit of an enunciative educational process at the same time that they are also enunciated, resulting in possibilities of being (more) demarcated or erased, according to the recalibrating rules of society.

Erasures are the tactical desenunciations in order not to let the singularities, peculiarities or subjectivities of the subjects appear, unless it is to demarcate the ‘error’ that this subject represents. These ‘errors’ represent, as we have already discussed, all the forms dictated by the system as to the notions of what it judges to be ‘correct’, ‘licit’, ‘normal’, pleasurable or likely to exist. These existences are interspersed in the discourses or even can be products of these. In this way, an educational policy, also based on the projects of a society linked to notions of property, demarcates bodies that have been categorized and validated, either in the formal educational space or in the contacts between these existences in worldly spaces.

The fleeting existences of norms confront the State and all its articulations, generating modes of that same State in curtailing existences within a kind of desenunciative game. Thus, any and every specificity that confronts the system is drawn or announced, according to specific logics. If, for example, specificities reveal the transvestibility associated to blackness, they can be factors of greater surveillance and control of the State, echoing in society associative aspects of criminality, danger etc., however, this same transvestite, when restrained, expelled from the educational systems all and arrested, is no longer announced as a transvestite. All of the drawings are tactically articulated so that they result in only a tiny nuclear existence, only one person, one code, one number.