Adoção das constelações familiares no judiciário brasileiro: análise da constituição da agenda à luz da teoria da burocracia de nível de rua

Abstract

The Brazilian judicial context is marked by hyper-judicialization, bureaucratization of politics, and politicization of the bureaucracy. Thus, the Judiciary assumes direct influence in the implementation and formulation of public policies, highlighting institutional tensions and disputes of interest. In this context, the adoption of a German therapeutic practice called Family Constellation within the Judiciary emerges and strengthens, especially through the initiative of the judiciary, a proposal known as Direito Sistêmico. Formally presented as a strategy to address the judicial crisis resulting from delays, it serves as an auxiliary instrument to the policy of adequate conflict resolution, such as conciliation and mediation. This study analyzes the process of agenda-setting, emphasizing the subjects and their respective interests and rationalities, in light of the Theory of Street-Level Bureaucracy. The theoretical-methodological framework adopted is historical-dialectical materialism, with a qualitative approach, supported by a review of the state of the art, documentary content analysis, and the complementary use of secondary quantitative data related to the Brazilian justice system. The investigation and critical analysis of therapeutic practice and its discretionary judicial application revealed that, despite being legitimized by consensus discourses and ratified by data that denote efficiency, it may prove incompatible with constitutional principles, as it reproduces symbolic violence, depoliticizes social conflicts, and compromises human dignity, while relying on scientifically questionable foundations. Furthermore, concerns arise regarding possible institutional interests in the management of litigation, serious ethical, democratic, and legal risks, requiring reflection on its foundations, limits, and social consequences. Finally, it proposes criteria in terms of judicial governance that, at a minimum, aim to make practices more accessible and transparent.