After extolling characteristics of virility throughout his government, from the Covid-19 pandemic to the one handed over to allies, () exposed fragility by highlighting health problems that in prison and attributing it to an electronic problem.
For psychoanalyst Christian Dunker, 59, this is another side of the same coin in the rhetoric about strength, winners and power.
“It may seem like there has been a substantial change, but it is the same discursive address. If things don’t work out, there is a change of poles, and the discourse of praising virility has its side reversed.”
In an interview with Sheet —granted before , senator Flávio Bolsonaro (PL-RJ), to run in the 2026 elections and the ex-president’s defense asked for it due to an inguinal hernia— Dunker says he considers that, “as a political hero”, Bolsonaro died, although the same cannot be said for .
“The character [Bolsonaro] died, but the possibility of you having a new, less pyrotechnic, less exaggerated alliance remains very latent.”
Dunker also discusses how the discourse of virility is intertwined with politics and also assesses that the minister of the (Federal Supreme Court) also personifies the discourse of the virile hero, this time a “dressed hero, more silent and rational”.
Former president Jair Bolsonaro seems to have migrated from a discourse of virility to one of weakness. How do you evaluate the change? It may seem like there has been a substantial change, but it is the same discursive address. If things don’t work out, there is a change of poles, and the discourse praising virility has its side reversed.
The idea of someone fragile and in need of help arises, because weakness is the opposite of strength. The discourse is, therefore, the same: of strength and weakness, winners and losers, of those who can and those who are powerless.
A second point is the strategy without strategy that appeared during the Bolsonaro government and appears now, in defense work [do político no processo da trama golpista]. At the time of the government, speeches composed of back and forth, contradictions, seemed to test the effect of what was proposed and then continue or retreat.
The episode is a bit reminiscent of what Freud described as the logic of the leaky cauldron. In the unconscious, several ideas often coexist at the same time, even if they are contradictory.
The story of the leaky cauldron logic is more or less as follows: one person lends a cauldron to another, who returns it leaky. The one who lent says: “Listen, the cauldron is leaky.” The other person gives three answers. First: “you never lent me that cauldron.” Second: “it was already broken when you lent it to me.” And third: “I never gave you back.” There are three individually pertinent answers, but which, taken together, point to the existence of something wrong.
This is what is happening in the defense of the former president. In an attempt to produce a path to leniency, we look for the narrative that can become the most popular or efficient.
What would be the psychological implications of this apparent change of discourse for Bolsonaro and allies? For allies, the implication of this aspect of fragility is curious, because it is a pole that was occluded when Bolsonaro was in power: the pole of pity, empathy, magnificence or temperance.
Previously, many complained about the way the former president saw his opponents as enemies to be ruthlessly eliminated. What we have now is a reversal to the side where the person needs an explanation for what happened.
The idea then emerges that he is being the victim of a fierce and atrocious justice system. This idea was occluded in the first phase of this speech, but now it appears as the solution for those who saw in Bolsonaro a great ideal leader, a kind of savior father.
What happens when dad falls? We have to feel sorry for him, have understanding and say: “the law applies to everyone, but for those who are exceptional, more leniency and temperance are needed”.
Can you explain a little more what changes with ? What was a leaky cauldron logic now appears as a type of mental disorder. There is an appeal, perhaps for you, perhaps for others, that this alternation of poles ultimately reflects a somewhat calculated idea that an outbreak, a crisis, is taking place.
The idea is conveyed that a person in this state needs reception, not punishment. What happens there is that everyone seems to have their own idea of what an outbreak is, and this creates a kind of popular absolution.
Basically, the idea of an outbreak reflects very different psychic states. Some might say that a panic attack is a type of outbreak. Others, a psychological crisis or a very intense state of dissociation, although they are clinically very different.
How does the discourse of virility intertwine with politics? [O ex-presidente, por exemplo, dizia que tinha o saco roxo. Ele foi eleito como um caçador de marajás, porque era um “homem de verdade”. Essa ideia faz parte da retórica que combina família —o poder natural, o pai— com a força, no sentido de que os problemas precisam ser enfrentados com violência.
Isso cria os protegidos e os inimigos, o que leva à separação nesses dois planos que muitos chamaram de polarização, mas que é um efeito de discurso.
Quando um processo como esse vai se transformando, há reações e retomadas regressivas. Lideranças viris e heroicas ganham algum espaço, mas, quando entram em um nível mais institucional, não são aprovadas.
E isso não só no caso do Brasil: [a montagem do presidente russo, Vladimir] Putin riding a bear, the [primeiro-ministro da , Viktor] Orbán saying “I’m a real Hungarian” and the [presidente dos , Donald] defending the idea of ”great again” virility are other examples.
Does Bolsonaro’s fall generate a reflux of this discourse based on virility? There is an unknown there. There will be a narrative that will continue to adhere to this discourse, but reversing the pole. She will say: “Look, Bolsonaro was defeated by an even tougher guy, who is Xandão [Alexandre de Moraes, ministro do STF]”.
Now the only thing that changes is the type of hero: he is the dressed-up hero, more silent and rational. This hero is less ostentatious, but, deep down, he is putting on a show. Many will see this: we continue in the era of males and their superpowers.
Bolsonaro was arrested and this did not generate large demonstrations. As a political figure, is he already dead? As a political hero, yes. This fits both the personal and public strategy that we follow within the family.
It fits into a typical problem of the political death of these characters, which is what happens when they are unable to leave an inheritance, transmit their power.
There is a clear vacancy as to who is “Bolsonaro 2”, although there are a lot of people competing, which is part of the game. He died, but the Bolsonarist speech did not. The character died, but the possibility of you having a new, less pyrotechnic, less exaggerated alliance remains very latent.
There is still a certain percentage of staunch Bolsonaro supporters. Like mr. see this? A critical theorist called [Theodor] Adorno carried out post-war research trying to understand whether there was any personality trait that explained why people adhered to fascism.
He arrived at a very similar number [ao de bolsonaristas mais aguerridos]in a proportion that remains more or less regular, between 9% and 14%, of people who are unable to retreat.
They cannot recognize mistakes, errors, and do not tolerate doubt. They adhere to an idea of a natural structure of power. In this logic, it is natural for the elders to command, for the father, the man, to command.
It’s a kind of world order. When you adhere to this way of functioning, it becomes very difficult to tolerate changes, whether in your favor or against. Change and the idea of transformation become a problem. When this accumulates, there is what we call a conservative revolution.
The number of people whose functioning is like this is more or less constant. The great danger is when they manage to capture the silent majority and expand beyond their own limits.
What else would you like to comment on? Bolsonaro has put in place a series of rules that are very contrary to what would be the most progressive policy in the field of mental health. He represented a huge risk of asylum regression, and [Bolsonaro, ex-primeira-dama] There is a certain infiltration of this theme, linked to disability and autism. And look how it is: now the topic has affinity with his argument that he has mental health problems.
He proposed the expansion of therapeutic communities, the reduction of Caps (Psychosocial Care Centers) and investments. He proposed a series of things, some passed, others didn’t, but the damage was great.
What happened is that this policy continued. Nobody saw it, but she kept going. This created several conservative groups that could acquire a very strong political influence among all those who need mental health care and who feel unassisted. These people can form a suffering public, easily captivated by a conservative direction.
X-RAY | Christian Dunker, 59
Psychoanalyst and professor at the Institute of Psychology at USP (University of São Paulo), with post-doctorate at Manchester Metropolitan University. Twice awarded the Jabuti prize for “Structure and Constitution of the Psychoanalytic Clinic” (Annablume, 2011) and “Mal-Estar, Suffering and Symptom” (Boitempo, 2015), he is also the author of the books “The Art of Love” (Record, 2024) and “Estilo de Lacan” (Zahar, 2025).
