This dissertation offers an analysis of state actors discursive practices which construct, in various ways, the Pacification Policy and, more specifically, the Pacifying Police Program in Rio de Janeiro, created in 2008. In a post-structural discourse analysis, two main discursive articulations are identified: on one hand, the Program is constructed as a set of practices aimed at the recovery of those territories which pose a risk to the whole population, which enables the deployment of violent and militarized practices; on the other hand, the Program is constructed as a set of practices aimed at the management of life and the promotion of socioeconomic development in the communities undergoing a pacification process. By analyzing the discursive practices associated with both articulations, I argue that the dispute over the stabilization of meanings associated with pacification in Rio de Janeiro reflects a broader ambiguity, which is associated to the deployment of biopolitical practices by the state: while it is defended that the entire population must have their rights assured and they development promoted, the state maintains the prerogative to delimitate, in a sovereign manner, certain spaces and subjects as sources of risk to the population, submitting them to distinct and illiberal forms of government. In the case of pacification, it is argued that such ambiguity leads to impacts such as the coexistence between a persistence of violent police practices and efforts of proximity policing – which may arguably impact the sustainability of the Program and its results.