State, conflicts, and the construction of truth in Brazil: the anthropological contributions of Roberto Kant de Lima

Abstract

This article critically examines the theoretical and methodological contributions of Roberto Kant de Lima to the consolidation and maturation of studies on the institutional administration of conflicts in Brazil. It highlights a fundamental epistemological shift proposed by the author: moving the analytical focus from normative and formal legal frameworks to the concrete, everyday practices of state agents. The study analyzes Kant de Lima’s pioneering trajectory in establishing public security and criminal justice as legitimate fields of anthropological inquiry, evaluating how this perspective reshapes research problem formulation, empirical fieldwork, and direct engagement with state institutions and public policies. Methodologically, the paper articulates the authors’ own empirical, professional, and institutional experiences in dialogue with Kant de Lima’s trajectory. It draws upon extensive ethnographic research involving comparative analyses and direct interlocution with state agencies, specifically referencing investigations centered on public space, police practices, the criminal justice system, and professional training in public security. The findings demonstrate that foundational categories such as “public order” and “legal truth” are far from being neutral or strictly normative guidelines. Instead, they operate as practical tools for classifying, processing, and managing social disputes, directly guiding selective state interventions and systematically reproducing legal and social inequalities. The article concludes that by prioritizing the study of the social construction of legal truth, the unequal distribution of credibility among citizens, and the localized, situated forms of conflict management, anthropology exposes the clear limitations of traditional normative and managerial approaches. Ultimately, this approach allows for a grounded understanding of the modern State—not as a monolithic entity, but as a dynamic set of institutional practices through which social conflicts are classified, truths are produced, and asymmetrical forms of recognition and citizenship are continuously reinforced.