As populações LGBT+ nas políticas públicas de lazer do estado de Minas Gerais

Abstract

Under the understanding that we live in a society that excludes social minorities from social practices among them, LGBT + populations, promoting a non-guarantee of access to certain rights by these populations, between them, leisure, this study aimed to identify and analyze how the state departments involved in the elaboration and execution of public leisure policies in the State of Minas Gerais aproach, in the process of implementing their policies, LGBT+ schedule. In addition, I investigated how these policies are being developed from the perspective of sectorial, intersectorial or transversal actions. To achieve these objectives, it was necessary to carry out three processes: bibliographic research, document analysis and a field study. For the document analysis, an investigation of the public policies developed by the Minas Gerais State Departments was carried out, and then, I established that the following would be analyzed: the Secretaria de Estado de Cultura e Turismo (SECULT), the Secretaria de Estado de Desenvolvimento Social (SEDESE) and the Secretaria de Estado de Educação (SEE). The next step was to carry out a prior analysis of the activities developed by these departments, through the investigation of the Plano Plurianual de Ação Governamental (PPAG) – 2020-2023. At last, I developed a field research, consisting of semi-structured interviews with eight managers involved in these activities. Then, in possession of the content of all interviews, the analysis of the data was performed using the content analysis technique. The results obtained made it possible to perceive the lack of mention of the studied public in the investigated regulations. During the field research, I identified that there are questionings, by the interviwees, regarding the insertion of the LGBT+ thematics in the public leisure politicies development. Therefore, I indicated that discussions on gender identity and sexuality should be in the professional formation for the ones involved. Among the actions and identified programs, I was aware that these are policies of temporary feature. In contrast, I observed that they are activities with an educational aspect that, in a certain level, contribute to the confrontation of LGBTphobias. It was also possible to note that, often, managers reported the lack of government resources, indicating that other policies, to guarantee other social rights, should be a priority. These conceptions contribute to the reaffirmation of a hierarchical scale of human needs, in which leisure would be less important. In other contexts, I perceived that leisure was pointed out as a mean to reach certain goals. I indicate that leisure has, as potenciality, the capability to contribute to other areas of human life. However, I highlighted the necessity of carefullness to not withdraw leisure’s protagonism, as if it alone dit not justify itself. I perceived that managers indicate, often, the existence of a transversal approach in policies development. At the same time, I noticed some characteristics of a management, in a certain level, intersectorial in the development of actions, done through the cooperation between bodies. However, I perceived that the stages to the development of the investigated policies are not well defined and there are a deficiency, mostly, in the evaluation stage of these policies. At last, I highlight the need for academic studies and researchers to establish a dialogue with the public sectors and the need of reflecting on the inclusion of subjects that make up social minorities in the discussion for the construction of leisure policies.