A bridge connects, makes distances shorter, and brings people closer. Beyond these benefits usually associated with road infrastructure development, such interventions also have the potential to create conflict and inequalities. To understand the nuances and struggles involved in development, the contested construction of a bridge in the city of Porto Alegre, Brazil is scrutinised. How do controversial processes of development in the fringes of urbanised areas unfold? What social power dynamics shape the implementation of road infrastructure?
Porto Alegre is the capital of the most southern state of Brazil. It had a bridge that was partially lifted for the passage of ships, causing traffic interruptions. In 2014, the construction of a taller fixed bridge started, with various institutions involved during a period of political changes and polarisation in Brazil. On one side of the bridge, there is the consolidated urban area of Porto Alegre. On the other side, islands forming a river delta are part of an environmentally protected ecological sanctuary, with lower income housing settlements and middle and high income vacation homes, all informally occupied.
Consensus in contested times?
The new Guaíba bridge, as it is popularly called, was developed during a period of significant changes in the political landscape of Brazil. The development started in 2014 with the signing of the construction contract by President Dilma Rousseff from the Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT or Worker’s Party), the most significant leftist party in Latin America (Samuels, 2004). In 2020, the bridge was opened for automobile crossing in a ceremony held by far-right President Jair Bolsonaro. During the years of construction, President Dilma was subjected to an impeachment process. The coup initiated by the impeachment happened in a context of growing polarisation (van Dijk, 2017) and growing discontent about widespread political corruption. Among generalised distrust and a polarised political environment, the 2018 presidential election culminated with the election of far-right Jair Bolsonaro. As the project was entirely financed by the federal government, these contested changes affected not only budget issues, but also the political climate surrounding implementation.
Piecemeal sections of the bridge under construction crossing a busy road. Photographer: André Ávila.
Despite the polarised political landscape in which the construction took place, the bridge was generally seen as a consensus for the public. Contrasting these narratives of consensus, tensions with the resettlement of lower-income neighbouring families, issues with funding and technical aspects, and the environmentally protected land where the bridge cuts through point to potential disputes emerging from the development. Therefore, this research has the potential to reveal power dynamics surrounding environmental concerns during the construction of road infrastructure on protected land in addition to investigating competing socio-economic interests during implementation.
These insights are enabled by analysing the narratives presented by news media during the implementation of the bridge. To examine the influence of media reporting on the implementation of the infrastructure, the central narratives in mainstream news articles and who was favoured or burdened by these narratives are investigated. The main research question derived from these goals is: How dominant discourses shape road infrastructure development on contested land? The following sub-questions are added to answer this key concern: What are the dominant media discourses about the new bridge? Which interests are validated in these narratives? Who benefits? Which interests are neglected in the dominant narratives? Who is burdened?
Development and Media Studies
The way in which mainstream media depicted social dynamics involved in the project is uncovered by engaging with contributions from Media Studies. Dominant media narratives influence public perception and limit what decision-makers are allowed to do by framing what issues are relevant according to public view, in what Media Studies define as agenda-setting (McCombs & Guo, 2014). One-hundred-ninety-seven mainstream news articles about the bridge were analysed using Critical Discourse Analysis, a critical theory that focuses on showing hidden assumptions, implicit arguments and power relations in communication (van Dijk, 1993). To unravel the power dynamics in these narratives, Framing theory was also mobilised, giving special attention to how problems, causes and solutions were presented, or what Entman (1993) defines as the emphasis of certain aspects of a perceived reality in a communicating text to construct certain understandings of the issue at hand.
Dominant themes
The qualitative analysis revealed three themes in media narratives. The first theme is the bridge as a solution, with narratives emphasising a consensus for the intervention, while downplaying potential negative impacts and alternative perspectives. The second theme highlights problems caused by the bridge, always portrayed as minor problems. The third theme focuses on issues obstructing the construction process, blaming resisting inhabitants and highlighting obstacles such as funding and delays in the relocation of vulnerable communities.
Within the first theme of the bridge as a solution, dominant frames highlight material aspects and occasionally the population impacted by the development. The desire and the need for the bridge appear as a consensus and benefits are emphasised in comparison to problems caused by the existing vertical-lift bridge, mostly in terms of increased local, metropolitan and regional road connection. Additionally, at times it is expressed that relocation will solve existing housing and socio-economic problems faced by the vulnerable neighbouring communities, while obscuring the historical neglect faced by the same communities, which exacerbated and even created some of these problems. Therefore, frames with strong emphasis on consensus and the benefits of the intervention while neglecting (potential) issues and alternatives to the construction evidence a depoliticising mechanism within narratives that overemphasise the bridge as a solution.
The second dominant pattern of causal explanation articulated in news media focuses on the bridge as a problem, including traffic disruptions and effects on local communities. Traffic disruptions caused by the construction are generally portrayed in a neutral manner, as issues that are necessary for a greater good. The effects on local communities include inhabitants’ fears of displacement and of the loss of reference points and social ties. Strikingly, potential environmental issues created by the bridge within the protected ecosystem of the delta are completely absent from news reports.
Bridge and concrete sections to be assembled right next to low income homes. Photographer: André Ávila.
The final key theme presented in the news pieces about the bridge revolves around issues hindering the development. This theme is strong throughout the database, and it includes frames about inefficient and unreliable governmental institutions, with a focus on funding issues, bureaucracy and technical issues. Surprisingly, environmental concerns only appear in this third theme, with the environmental permits framed as a cause of delay for progress. Likewise, most stories about populations impacted by the bridge are constructed as problems for the development. These include the slow process of relocation as a hindrance for the construction, disregarding that affected populations have been living there for decades. Similarly, any forms of resistance by inhabitants that refuse to leave their homes, either because they have nowhere else to go or because their desires and needs haven’t been respected in the process of relocation, are always depicted as problems for the bridge. Whenever ideas or actors are framed in opposition to each other, the constructs are used in narratives of problems for the development. Therefore, polarisation is often used in narratives to stress who and what prevents the unanimous goal of building the bridge.
Meanings behind narratives
Although problems caused by the development which affect the neighbouring communities are not completely absent from the newspapers, the representation of the fear of displacement and of losing reference points are never articulated as crucial issues. The adoption of housing solutions that did not correspond to the resettlement outcome desired by several families, in addition to the choice to dismantle local reference points, demonstrate that while most fears voiced indeed materialised, the relative power of the local communities to influence available choices was negligible. Instead, narratives of the relocation as a good change – from areas with poor infrastructure and facilities to consolidated well-served urbanised territories – emphasise an alleged benefit of moving while denying the historical neglect faced by these groups.
Moreover, the forms of resistance framed as problems for the development are in fact the ways in which powerless voices find a way to be seen. The inhabitant who refuses to leave because he has nowhere to go makes the situation of the displaced visible, with multiple pieces dedicated to the issue, including remarkable photos of the bridge fragile at the point where his resisting shack creates a dent on the concrete path. Even if temporarily and without structurally changing their power position, these acts of resistance give some political agency, however small, to people historically marginalised and made invisible. They demonstrate that despite the success of neoliberalism in having achieved a strong hegemony with its obsession on consensus and economic growth, conflicting perspectives do not cease to exist. While the hope generated by these acts is modest, their potential is not negligible. As suggested by Kaika (2017), dissensus can potentially operate as a living indicator, exposing genuine priorities for people, and it is perhaps in recognising this role that more just and democratic futures can be achieved.
Bridge crossing islands with a dent where a shack remains. Photographer: André Ávila.
Inhabitant looks at the very close bridge construction from his shack. Photographer: André Ávila.
Additionally, discourses emphasising benefits and denying conflicting interests detract public attention from the burdens experienced by neighbouring communities. The narrative of consensus also underlies the simplification of complex issues, such as a car-centric culture and the historical neglect faced by these communities in terms of sanitation, mobility, electricity and housing standards. As a consequence, these strategies prevent any meaningful and nuanced debate about the origins of these problems, let alone discussions of what problems are relevant for whom, therefore preventing real discussions of what should be prioritised.
Finally, most discursive strategies identified in the analysis contribute to the argument of a consensus about the new bridge. Advancing the narrative of consensus, depoliticising constructs with seemingly neutral statements about the expected increased vehicle throughput enabled by the intervention obscure the political nature of the decision and the potential environmental damage caused by additional polluting vehicles. Yet these strategies work precisely to conceal the biggest winners, as powerful neoliberal actors benefit from the choice to build the bridge; meaning car manufacturers, road builders and oil companies evidently profit from road development and increased car usage. It has been suggested that the lobby of car organisations may be particularly influential in low- and middle-income countries (Gössling & Cohen, 2014). Additionally, the well-studied characteristics of Western car-dependent transport systems in which influential automobile lobbyism has been identified has striking similarities with the empirical findings of this study, such as the perception of car infrastructure as analogue to economic growth and development, or what Mattioli and colleagues (2020) call an “apolitical façade around pro-car decision making” (p.14).
Overall, the dominant media narratives identified in the analysis prioritise consensus and economic growth, while neglecting the rights and desires of neighbouring communities and environmental concerns. These discourses perpetuate social inequalities and shape the priorities for automobile infrastructure development in Porto Alegre.
0 reacties