National identity is a central
element in the formulation of public policies and the construction of the
state's legitimacy. In societies marked by ethnic, racial, and gender diversity,
as is the case in Latin America, policies of recognition and redistribution
reveal structural tensions between legal universalism, historical exclusion,
and the limits of institutional multiculturalism.
In the Brazilian context, as Fiorin
(2009) points out, national identity was constructed around the myth of
miscegenation and symbolic inclusion but often hides deep-seated mechanisms of
social exclusion. Similarly, Wenceslau (2012) analyzes how Argentine identity
was shaped under strong European influence, resulting in the marginalization of
indigenous and popular sectors in the name of a white, civilizational ideal.
Mignolo and Walsh (2018) situate these identity constructions as still active
colonial legacies, operating through “coloniality of power”, an urgent critique
of traditional forms of national belonging and representation. In this sense,
Hacin (2007) observes that institutional approaches to multiculturalism often
reduce diversity to the logic of state management, ignoring its lived,
relational, and political dimensions. For the author, it is necessary to shift
the debate to everyday practices of coexistence and mutual recognition, in
which multiculturalism is experienced — and not just regulated.
This article investigates how the
intersection between multiculturalism and decolonial feminism reveals the
limits of national identity policies in Brazil and Argentina between 2003 and
2023. It is based on the hypothesis that, although both countries have advanced
in legislative production aimed at gender equality, their policies still
operate under logics that reproduce colonial and patriarchal structures.
The central objective is to
critically analyze how discourses and policies on multiculturalism and gender,
anchored in constitutional and institutional frameworks, participate in the
symbolic production of national identity in these two countries. To this end, a
qualitative and comparative approach is adopted, emphasizing the critical
analysis of legal documents, state speeches, and relevant court decisions.
The relevance of this research lies
in the urgency of thinking about models of belonging that break with the
universalist and exogenous logic inherited from colonialism and incorporate
historically silenced voices. The analysis is linked to SDGs 5, 10, and 16 of
the 2030 Agenda. It therefore proposes a critical and intersectional reading of
national identity policies in Latin America, emphasizing the centrality of
feminist and decolonial epistemologies in the construction of inclusive
democracies.
The notion of citizenship in Latin
America carries a historical tension between the promise of universal inclusion
and social realities marked by structural exclusion. While classical liberalism
defined citizenship as a set of universal civil and political rights, several
authors point out that this universality is often simulated in the region's
post-colonial contexts, functioning as a mechanism for maintaining unequal
power structures.
Sardoc (2011) argues that the
liberal model of citizenship, centered on individual rights and state
neutrality, is insufficient in societies marked by historical inequalities and
multiple forms of oppression. Instead of promoting equality, this model
silences differences and imposes standards of belonging that favor male, white,
and urban elites. Mignolo and Walsh (2018) expand on this criticism by stating
that, in Latin America, the "coloniality of power" continues to
structure unequal access to citizenship and political representation.
Hoffmann (2000) highlights that the
absence of a unifying element made it difficult to consolidate cohesive
national states, resulting in fragmented and selective citizenship. This
fragmentation is related not only to the formal exclusion of indigenous
peoples, women, and black people, but also to the denial of their knowledge,
ways of life, and languages in the construction of national identity.
Guadarrama (2023) expands the debate by stating that the utopia of Latin
American citizenship has been disputed since independence, functioning as a
political aspiration and a strategy of anti-colonial resistance. It proposes a
citizenship rooted in multiple sovereignties, which recognizes the historical
and cultural specificities of the region's people — a perspective that directly
dialogues with the feminist and decolonial approaches discussed in this
article.
In this context, formal citizenship
proves to be insufficient. Legal inclusion does not guarantee complete
belonging, especially when operating based on exogenous epistemologies.
Feminist and decolonial criticism points out that faithful citizenship requires
more than state recognition: it demands redistribution of power, recognition of
silenced subjectivities, and reconfiguration of the symbolic bases of
belonging. Thus, citizenship in Latin America is simultaneously a promise and a
limitation. Its implementation depends on the ability of States to break with
colonial legacies and incorporate plural perspectives, especially those of
women, indigenous peoples, and people of African descent, historically excluded
despite supporting society.
The theoretical framework of this
article articulates three main currents: social constructivism, contemporary
criticism of multiculturalism, and decolonial feminism. Constructivism allows
us to understand national identity as a discursive and political construction,
subject to symbolic disputes. Criticisms of multiculturalism, especially in the
post-colonial context, warn of the risks of symbolic recognition dissociated
from material justice (Vertovec & Wessendorf, 2010; Kymlicka, 2012).
Decolonial feminism offers tools to analyze how the nation-state reproduces
racial and gender hierarchies, naturalizing exclusions for national cohesion.
These currents allow an integrated reading of the multiple dimensions of
citizen exclusion.
In Brazil, institutionalized
multiculturalism since the 1988 Constitution has generated formal advances in
recognizing diversity, but it rarely breaks with structures of exclusion. The
Maria da Penha Law (2006) is an example of this. Although it represents a
milestone against gender-based violence, its creation was driven by
international pressure, and its application still faces structural obstacles.
The persistence of the myth of racial democracy serves to hide historical
inequalities and silence the demands of black, indigenous, and peripheral
women, who continue to be marginalized in material and symbolic terms.
In Argentina, the construction of
national identity was based on the ideal of a white, Europeanized nation. The
indigenous and Afro-descendant presence was systematically erased from official
discourse. Although Ley Micaela (2018) represents an advance in combating
gender-based violence through the training of public agents, the country still
fails to adopt an intersectional approach. Migrant, racialized, and poor women
remain invisible in public policies. Cultural homogenization is masked by a
progressive narrative that does not translate into effective inclusion.
Both countries present structural
limits in their multiculturalism and national identity policies. Brazil
fetishizes diversity without redistributing power; Argentina erases the
difference in the name of national cohesion. In both contexts, the absence of
epistemic ruptures prevents symbolic recognition from being translated into
real belonging. Gender policies, even when well-intentioned, are often captured
by dominant national narratives, losing their transformative potential. In
addition to legal reforms, it is necessary to rethink the symbolic foundations
of citizenship in the light of plural, feminist, and decolonial epistemologies.
Only in this way will it be possible to build truly inclusive national
projects, aligning with the SDGs and the reality of marginalized populations.
The comparative analysis between
Brazil and Argentina demonstrates that legal advances in terms of gender
equality and recognition of diversity were not enough to break with the
exclusionary paradigms inherited from colonialism. Both Brazil's aesthetic multiculturalism
and Argentina's cultural homogenization operate within symbolic limits that
reproduce structural inequalities. In both cases, full citizenship remains
restricted to normative standards of belonging based on race, class, and
gender.
More than progressive legislation is
needed to transform this scenario: an epistemic rupture that values plural
knowledge and promotes effective redistribution of power is urgent. This
implies rethinking the role of the State, education, the justice system, and
institutions in maintaining social hierarchies. The construction of truly
inclusive national identities in the Southern Cone requires active listening to
historically marginalized voices, a commitment to redistributive justice, and
the courage to deconstruct foundational myths perpetuating exclusions. Only
from this symbolic and material reconfiguration will it be possible to move
towards the commitments of SDGs 5, 10, and 16 — and build more equitable,
participatory, and plural democracies.
References
Fiorin, J.
L. (2009). A construção da identidade nacional brasileira. Bakhtiniana: Revista de Estudos do Discurso, 1(1), 115–126.
Gabriela, H.
L., Assmann Saraiva, J., & Conte, D. (2022). Aspectos da identidade
brasileira em canções dos anos 2000: Representação do Brasil na música popular.
Miguilim: Revista Eletrônica do Miguilim
- Grupo de Pesquisa em Literatura Infantil e Juvenil e Práticas de Mediação
Literária, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.47295/mgren.v10i4.3637
Guadarrama,
P. G. (2023). La integración y la utopía de una ciudadanía latinoamericana. Utopía y Praxis Latinoamericana, 25(89).
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7538405
Kymlicka, W.
(2012). Multiculturalism: Success, failure,
and the future.
Migration Policy Institute.
Hacin, M. L. (2007). To think and
live multiculturalisms in various migration contexts of European Union Member
States. In M. Drnovšek (Ed.), Historical
and cultural perspectives on Slovenian migration (pp. 137–172). Založba ZRC.
https://omp.zrc-sazu.si/zalozba/catalog/download/678/2859/1391-1?inline=1
Mignolo, W. D., & Walsh, C. E.
(2018). On decoloniality: Concepts,
analytics, praxis. Duke University Press.
Sardoč, M. (2011). Citizenship and
civic equality. Annales: Series Historia
et Sociologia, 21(2), 225–236. http://www.dlib.si
Vertovec, S., & Wessendorf, S.
(Eds.). (2010). The multiculturalism
backlash: European discourses, policies and practices. Routledge.
Wenceslau,
W. C. R. (2012). A formação do Estado nacional da Argentina: Uma discussão
sobre identidade e nacionalidade. Cadernos
de História, 13(18), 116. https://periodicos.pucminas.br/index.php/cadernoshistoria/article/view/P.2237-8871.2012v13n18p116
Author:
Ana Caroline Sales e Souza Garcia
European Master in Migratio and Intercultural Relation