Pub Date : 2020-02-26DOI: 10.6035/RECERCA.2020.25.2.5
Luis Periáñez Llorente
We deal here with how public space publicity is produced and understood, and how such production and understanding have a normative and performative impact on the users of that space. The approach we have chosen intends to co-ordinate these aspects with the help of the ethnographies that have been carried out in recent times on cruising, as this activity, which implies a furtive appropriation of certain public spaces for the development of anonymous sexual activities among men, offers a privileged observatory of the gap between public space as a performative device and agents, which are not always merely molded by such devices. We find in this practice an optimal window for the analysis of the way in which the public and the private are construed spatially and conceptually in the dialectic between moral frameworks and subjective practices.
{"title":"Convivencia y vigilancia: cruising y producción del espacio público","authors":"Luis Periáñez Llorente","doi":"10.6035/RECERCA.2020.25.2.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6035/RECERCA.2020.25.2.5","url":null,"abstract":"We deal here with how public space publicity is produced and understood, and how such production and understanding have a normative and performative impact on the users of that space. The approach we have chosen intends to co-ordinate these aspects with the help of the ethnographies that have been carried out in recent times on cruising, as this activity, which implies a furtive appropriation of certain public spaces for the development of anonymous sexual activities among men, offers a privileged observatory of the gap between public space as a performative device and agents, which are not always merely molded by such devices. We find in this practice an optimal window for the analysis of the way in which the public and the private are construed spatially and conceptually in the dialectic between moral frameworks and subjective practices.","PeriodicalId":42552,"journal":{"name":"Recerca-Revista de Pensament & Analisi","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41964707","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-15DOI: 10.6035/recerca.2020.25.1.1
Mark Devenney, Clare Woodford, Ramón A. Feenstra
The past two decades have witnessed a resurgence of populist politics across the globe. The early 21st century saw the pink tide of left wing populism in Latin America, the Southern European populisms that rejected the politics of austerity after 2013, and the right wing populisms that now dominate not only European but global polities. Although each instance of populist politics is distinct, all share an appeal to the people, to the true people, who both oppose and are dominated by the political elite. The nature of this elite also varies – in some cases it is predatory capital; in other cases it is the multicultural left; in yet others the anonymous bureaucrats in Brussels undermining national sovereignty. This special issue of RECERCA poses one question: how does populism relate to democracy? Is it democracy’s other face?
{"title":"Rethinking populism and democracy in politically turbulent times","authors":"Mark Devenney, Clare Woodford, Ramón A. Feenstra","doi":"10.6035/recerca.2020.25.1.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6035/recerca.2020.25.1.1","url":null,"abstract":"The past two decades have witnessed a resurgence of populist politics across the globe. The early 21st century saw the pink tide of left wing populism in Latin America, the Southern European populisms that rejected the politics of austerity after 2013, and the right wing populisms that now dominate not only European but global polities. Although each instance of populist politics is distinct, all share an appeal to the people, to the true people, who both oppose and are dominated by the political elite. The nature of this elite also varies – in some cases it is predatory capital; in other cases it is the multicultural left; in yet others the anonymous bureaucrats in Brussels undermining national sovereignty. This special issue of RECERCA poses one question: how does populism relate to democracy? Is it democracy’s other face?","PeriodicalId":42552,"journal":{"name":"Recerca-Revista de Pensament & Analisi","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43274378","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-05DOI: 10.6035/recerca.2020.25.2.8
Jose Antonio Cerrillo Vidal
El concepto de muerte asistida comprende una heterogénea variedad de prácticas, cuyo denominador común es garantizar al ciudadano su derecho a participar en las decisiones relacionadas con su propio proceso de muerte, para que sea tan acorde a sus preferencias como sea posible. Se trata de uno de los temas más polémicos y discutidos en las últimas décadas, tanto en el ámbito académico como en la opinión pública. En este artículo se examinan las dos principales justificaciones favorables a su legalización: garantizar la autonomía individual como en los demás ámbitos de la vida y evitar un sufrimiento innecesario al moribundo. Se argumentará que, si bien ambas se encuentran relacionadas y en las dos se anudan la ética del cuidado con la de la autonomía del sujeto, la justificación por la autonomía es más sólida y resiste mejor las objeciones de los contrarios a la legalización de este derecho. The concept of assisted death includes a heterogeneous variety of practices, whose common denominator is to guarantee citizens their right to participate in decisions related to their own death process, to make it as consistent with their preferences as possible. It’s one of the most controversial and discussed topics in recent decades, both in the academic field and in public opinion. This paper examines the two main justifications for its legalization: to guarantee individual autonomy as in other areas of life, and to avoid unnecessary suffering to the dying. It will be argued that, although both are related and both tie the ethics of care with the autonomy of the subject, the justification for autonomy is stronger and resists better the objections of those opposed to the legalization of this right.
协助死亡的概念包括各种各样的做法，其共同特点是保障公民参与与自己的死亡过程有关的决定的权利，以便使决定尽可能符合他们的喜好。这是近几十年来学术界和公众舆论中最具争议和讨论的问题之一。这篇文章探讨了合法化的两个主要理由:保证个人自主权，就像在生活的其他领域一样，以及避免给垂死的人带来不必要的痛苦。在本文中，我们提出了一种方法，在这种方法中，照顾的伦理与主体的自治伦理相结合，以自治为理由的理由更有力，更能抵抗反对这一权利合法化的人的反对。协助死亡的概念包括各种各样的做法，其共同特点是保证公民有权参与与其自身死亡过程有关的决定，使其尽可能符合其偏好。It ' s one of the most争议问题最近. in decades, both in the academic and field in public opinion。这篇论文讨论了将其合法化的两个主要理由:保证个人在生活的其他领域的自治，以及避免不必要的死亡痛苦。有人认为，虽然两者都与关心主体自主的伦理有关，并将其联系在一起，但自主的理由更有力，更能抵抗那些反对将这一权利合法化的人的反对。
{"title":"Las justificaciones de la muerte asistida","authors":"Jose Antonio Cerrillo Vidal","doi":"10.6035/recerca.2020.25.2.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6035/recerca.2020.25.2.8","url":null,"abstract":"El concepto de muerte asistida comprende una heterogénea variedad de prácticas, cuyo denominador común es garantizar al ciudadano su derecho a participar en las decisiones relacionadas con su propio proceso de muerte, para que sea tan acorde a sus preferencias como sea posible. Se trata de uno de los temas más polémicos y discutidos en las últimas décadas, tanto en el ámbito académico como en la opinión pública. En este artículo se examinan las dos principales justificaciones favorables a su legalización: garantizar la autonomía individual como en los demás ámbitos de la vida y evitar un sufrimiento innecesario al moribundo. Se argumentará que, si bien ambas se encuentran relacionadas y en las dos se anudan la ética del cuidado con la de la autonomía del sujeto, la justificación por la autonomía es más sólida y resiste mejor las objeciones de los contrarios a la legalización de este derecho. \u0000The concept of assisted death includes a heterogeneous variety of practices, whose common denominator is to guarantee citizens their right to participate in decisions related to their own death process, to make it as consistent with their preferences as possible. It’s one of the most controversial and discussed topics in recent decades, both in the academic field and in public opinion. This paper examines the two main justifications for its legalization: to guarantee individual autonomy as in other areas of life, and to avoid unnecessary suffering to the dying. It will be argued that, although both are related and both tie the ethics of care with the autonomy of the subject, the justification for autonomy is stronger and resists better the objections of those opposed to the legalization of this right. \u0000 ","PeriodicalId":42552,"journal":{"name":"Recerca-Revista de Pensament & Analisi","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79633659","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-05DOI: 10.6035/HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.6035/RECERCA.2020.25.2.8
J. Vidal
El concepto de muerte asistida comprende una heterogenea variedad de practicas, cuyo denominador comun es garantizar al ciudadano su derecho a participar en las decisiones relacionadas con su propio proceso de muerte, para que sea tan acorde a sus preferencias como sea posible. Se trata de uno de los temas mas polemicos y discutidos en las ultimas decadas, tanto en el ambito academico como en la opinion publica. En este articulo se examinan las dos principales justificaciones favorables a su legalizacion: garantizar la autonomia individual como en los demas ambitos de la vida y evitar un sufrimiento innecesario al moribundo. Se argumentara que, si bien ambas se encuentran relacionadas y en las dos se anudan la etica del cuidado con la de la autonomia del sujeto, la justificacion por la autonomia es mas solida y resiste mejor las objeciones de los contrarios a la legalizacion de este derecho. The concept of assisted death includes a heterogeneous variety of practices, whose common denominator is to guarantee citizens their right to participate in decisions related to their own death process, to make it as consistent with their preferences as possible. It’s one of the most controversial and discussed topics in recent decades, both in the academic field and in public opinion. This paper examines the two main justifications for its legalization: to guarantee individual autonomy as in other areas of life, and to avoid unnecessary suffering to the dying. It will be argued that, although both are related and both tie the ethics of care with the autonomy of the subject, the justification for autonomy is stronger and resists better the objections of those opposed to the legalization of this right.
协助死亡的概念包括各种各样的做法，其共同特点是保障公民参与与自己的死亡过程有关的决定的权利，使其尽可能符合其偏好。这是近几十年来学术界和公众舆论中最具争议和讨论的问题之一。在这一过程中，我们发现了一种方法，通过这种方法，一个人可以在他或她的生命中获得自由，而不受任何限制。本文认为，关怀伦理与主体自治伦理相结合，虽然两者是相关的，但关怀伦理与主体自治伦理相结合，自治的正当性更强，更能抵抗反对这一权利合法化的人的反对。协助死亡的概念包括各种各样的做法，其共同特点是保证公民有权参与与其自身死亡过程有关的决定，使其尽可能符合其偏好。It ' s one of the most争议问题最近. in decades, both in the academic and field in public opinion。这篇论文讨论了将其合法化的两个主要理由:保证个人在生活的其他领域的自治，以及避免不必要的死亡痛苦。有人认为，虽然两者都与关心主体自主的伦理有关，并将其联系在一起，但自主的理由更有力，更能抵抗那些反对将这一权利合法化的人的反对。
{"title":"Las justificaciones de la muerte asistida","authors":"J. Vidal","doi":"10.6035/HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.6035/RECERCA.2020.25.2.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6035/HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.6035/RECERCA.2020.25.2.8","url":null,"abstract":"El concepto de muerte asistida comprende una heterogenea variedad de practicas, cuyo denominador comun es garantizar al ciudadano su derecho a participar en las decisiones relacionadas con su propio proceso de muerte, para que sea tan acorde a sus preferencias como sea posible. Se trata de uno de los temas mas polemicos y discutidos en las ultimas decadas, tanto en el ambito academico como en la opinion publica. En este articulo se examinan las dos principales justificaciones favorables a su legalizacion: garantizar la autonomia individual como en los demas ambitos de la vida y evitar un sufrimiento innecesario al moribundo. Se argumentara que, si bien ambas se encuentran relacionadas y en las dos se anudan la etica del cuidado con la de la autonomia del sujeto, la justificacion por la autonomia es mas solida y resiste mejor las objeciones de los contrarios a la legalizacion de este derecho. The concept of assisted death includes a heterogeneous variety of practices, whose common denominator is to guarantee citizens their right to participate in decisions related to their own death process, to make it as consistent with their preferences as possible. It’s one of the most controversial and discussed topics in recent decades, both in the academic field and in public opinion. This paper examines the two main justifications for its legalization: to guarantee individual autonomy as in other areas of life, and to avoid unnecessary suffering to the dying. It will be argued that, although both are related and both tie the ethics of care with the autonomy of the subject, the justification for autonomy is stronger and resists better the objections of those opposed to the legalization of this right.","PeriodicalId":42552,"journal":{"name":"Recerca-Revista de Pensament & Analisi","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43103617","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-04DOI: 10.6035/RECERCA.2020.25.2.2
Jorge León Casero, J. Urabayen
Los fenómenos urbanos son modos concretos de reproducción social y, como toda reproducción, tienen un carácter histórico. En este artículo se defenderá que es posible identificar tres grandes paradigmas históricos en el desarrollo urbano del Occidente moderno —la ciudad, la metrópolis y la postmetrópolis— y que su forma de gobernanza coincide con los tres tipos de poder identificados por Foucault: el soberano, el disciplinar y el biopolítico. Además, se analizará cómo cada una de estas tres dobles configuraciones de la reproducción social genera unos puntos neurálgicos, cuya manipulación produce un impacto sobre el sistema mucho mayor que cualquier otra posible acción, tanto si está orientada al dominio institucional del poder constituido como a la resistencia frente al mismo. El presente trabajo aborda la lógica de funcionamiento de estos tres modelos urbanos, identificando sus respectivos centros neurálgicos como punto de partida desde el que es viable constituir el sujeto político antagónico más efectivo posible en cada uno de ellos.
{"title":"Paradigmas de producción urbana y sus resistencias: ciudad, metrópolis y postmetrópolis","authors":"Jorge León Casero, J. Urabayen","doi":"10.6035/RECERCA.2020.25.2.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6035/RECERCA.2020.25.2.2","url":null,"abstract":"Los fenómenos urbanos son modos concretos de reproducción social y, como toda reproducción, tienen un carácter histórico. En este artículo se defenderá que es posible identificar tres grandes paradigmas históricos en el desarrollo urbano del Occidente moderno —la ciudad, la metrópolis y la postmetrópolis— y que su forma de gobernanza coincide con los tres tipos de poder identificados por Foucault: el soberano, el disciplinar y el biopolítico. Además, se analizará cómo cada una de estas tres dobles configuraciones de la reproducción social genera unos puntos neurálgicos, cuya manipulación produce un impacto sobre el sistema mucho mayor que cualquier otra posible acción, tanto si está orientada al dominio institucional del poder constituido como a la resistencia frente al mismo. El presente trabajo aborda la lógica de funcionamiento de estos tres modelos urbanos, identificando sus respectivos centros neurálgicos como punto de partida desde el que es viable constituir el sujeto político antagónico más efectivo posible en cada uno de ellos. ","PeriodicalId":42552,"journal":{"name":"Recerca-Revista de Pensament & Analisi","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78275409","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.6035/recerca.2020.25.1.7
E. Elías
El objetivo del articulo es analizar las formas de articulacion entre el presupuesto participativo y las instituciones politico-representativas locales (gobierno y partidos) en las experiencias de las ciudades de Cordoba, Gualeguaychu, Paysandu y Montevideo. En primera instancia, se presenta un modelo teorico de analisis con tipos ideales, que expresan formas posibles de relacionamiento. Seguidamente, utilizando el modelo planteado, se analizan los cuatro casos, en dos momentos diferentes, separados por una eleccion de gobierno local. Finalmente, se senala, en funcion de los casos estudiados, como en escenarios de participacion plural y alcance restringido la mayor institucionalizacion generaria un estimulo para ir paulatinamente ampliando el alcance. The aim of the article is to analyze the forms of articulation between the participatory budget and the local political-representative institutions (government and parties) in the experiences of the cities of Cordoba, Gualeguaychu, Paysandu and Montevideo. A theoretical analysis model with ideal types expressing possible forms of articulation is presented in the first instance. Then, using the model presented, the four cases are analyzed in two moments of time separated by a local government election. Finally, it is pointed out how in scenarios of plural participation and restricted scope greater institutionalization could generate an incentive to gradually expand the scope.
{"title":"Presupuestos Participativos e instituciones políticas locales. Posibles formas de articulación en casos de Argentina y Uruguay","authors":"E. Elías","doi":"10.6035/recerca.2020.25.1.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6035/recerca.2020.25.1.7","url":null,"abstract":"El objetivo del articulo es analizar las formas de articulacion entre el presupuesto participativo y las instituciones politico-representativas locales (gobierno y partidos) en las experiencias de las ciudades de Cordoba, Gualeguaychu, Paysandu y Montevideo. En primera instancia, se presenta un modelo teorico de analisis con tipos ideales, que expresan formas posibles de relacionamiento. Seguidamente, utilizando el modelo planteado, se analizan los cuatro casos, en dos momentos diferentes, separados por una eleccion de gobierno local. Finalmente, se senala, en funcion de los casos estudiados, como en escenarios de participacion plural y alcance restringido la mayor institucionalizacion generaria un estimulo para ir paulatinamente ampliando el alcance. The aim of the article is to analyze the forms of articulation between the participatory budget and the local political-representative institutions (government and parties) in the experiences of the cities of Cordoba, Gualeguaychu, Paysandu and Montevideo. A theoretical analysis model with ideal types expressing possible forms of articulation is presented in the first instance. Then, using the model presented, the four cases are analyzed in two moments of time separated by a local government election. Finally, it is pointed out how in scenarios of plural participation and restricted scope greater institutionalization could generate an incentive to gradually expand the scope.","PeriodicalId":42552,"journal":{"name":"Recerca-Revista de Pensament & Analisi","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71039778","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.6035/recerca.2020.25.1.2
P. Biglieri
El articulo parte de la discusion actual sobre si la proliferacion de los asi denominados populismos de derecha invalida o no la tesis de Laclau de que el populismo es un tipo de articulacion que puede dar un sentido emancipatorio a la iniciativa politica. Dicho debate que se ha presentado fundamentalmente bajo la oposicion binaria populismos de derechas frente a populismos de izquierda tiene a dos voces contrapuestas, las de Fassin y Mouffe, que el texto se propone revisar, desde una perspectiva laclausiana, a partir de dos preguntas que se desprenden de las posiciones politicas de los autores: ?es posible, como desearia Fassin, eludir o eliminar el populismo? ?Es posible distinguir entre un populismo de derechas y uno de izquierdas, como propone Mouffe? The article takes as a point of departure the current discussion about the proliferation of the so called right-wing populisms that put into question Laclau’s thesis that populism is a sort of articulation that may bring about emancipatory directions to politics. This debate, that has recently taken the format of an opposition between right-wing populism vs. leftwing populisms, has two main competing voices —Fassin and Mouffe— that the text reviews from a Laclausian perspective. The two questions addressed, that rise from the political position of each author, are the following: is it possible to eliminate populism as Fassin would prefer? Is it possible to establish a differentiation between right-wing and left-wing populism as Mouffe affirms?
{"title":"Populismo: ¿izquierdas y derechas?","authors":"P. Biglieri","doi":"10.6035/recerca.2020.25.1.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6035/recerca.2020.25.1.2","url":null,"abstract":"El articulo parte de la discusion actual sobre si la proliferacion de los asi denominados populismos de derecha invalida o no la tesis de Laclau de que el populismo es un tipo de articulacion que puede dar un sentido emancipatorio a la iniciativa politica. Dicho debate que se ha presentado fundamentalmente bajo la oposicion binaria populismos de derechas frente a populismos de izquierda tiene a dos voces contrapuestas, las de Fassin y Mouffe, que el texto se propone revisar, desde una perspectiva laclausiana, a partir de dos preguntas que se desprenden de las posiciones politicas de los autores: ?es posible, como desearia Fassin, eludir o eliminar el populismo? ?Es posible distinguir entre un populismo de derechas y uno de izquierdas, como propone Mouffe? The article takes as a point of departure the current discussion about the proliferation of the so called right-wing populisms that put into question Laclau’s thesis that populism is a sort of articulation that may bring about emancipatory directions to politics. This debate, that has recently taken the format of an opposition between right-wing populism vs. leftwing populisms, has two main competing voices —Fassin and Mouffe— that the text reviews from a Laclausian perspective. The two questions addressed, that rise from the political position of each author, are the following: is it possible to eliminate populism as Fassin would prefer? Is it possible to establish a differentiation between right-wing and left-wing populism as Mouffe affirms?","PeriodicalId":42552,"journal":{"name":"Recerca-Revista de Pensament & Analisi","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87630582","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.6035/recerca.2020.25.1.5
Gisela Zaremberg, Yanina Welp
This paper discusses the myths regarding both the conceptualization and the expected effects that are implicitly or explicitly presented in analyses of the so-called ‘democratic innovations’, that is, the new institutions that aim to increase public participation beyond regular elections. It is argued that these myths, together with the (fictitious) confrontation between direct and indirect politics, have generated false oppositions and reductionisms that mask the debate and limit empirical approximations to democratic innovation. A research agenda based on the concept of ‘participatory ecologies’ is suggested as a way to gain an understanding of the mechanisms of participation in a systematic way. Este articulo analiza los mitos que se han construido, tanto en un plano conceptual como de efectos esperados, en torno a las denominadas innovaciones democraticas , entendidas como instituciones destinadas a incrementar la participacion ciudadana mas alla de las elecciones. Argumentamos que tanto estos mitos como la (ficticia) confrontacion entre politica directa e indirecta ha generado falsas oposiciones y reduccionismos que enmascaran el debate y limitan el estudio empirico de la innovacion democratica. Una agenda de investigacion basada en el concepto de ecologias participativas se sugiere para el entendimiento de los mecanismos de participacion en forma sistematica.
{"title":"Más allá de enfoques utópicos y distópicos sobre innovación democrática. Beyond Utopian and Dystopian approaches to democratic innovation","authors":"Gisela Zaremberg, Yanina Welp","doi":"10.6035/recerca.2020.25.1.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6035/recerca.2020.25.1.5","url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses the myths regarding both the conceptualization and the expected effects that are implicitly or explicitly presented in analyses of the so-called ‘democratic innovations’, that is, the new institutions that aim to increase public participation beyond regular elections. It is argued that these myths, together with the (fictitious) confrontation between direct and indirect politics, have generated false oppositions and reductionisms that mask the debate and limit empirical approximations to democratic innovation. A research agenda based on the concept of ‘participatory ecologies’ is suggested as a way to gain an understanding of the mechanisms of participation in a systematic way. Este articulo analiza los mitos que se han construido, tanto en un plano conceptual como de efectos esperados, en torno a las denominadas innovaciones democraticas , entendidas como instituciones destinadas a incrementar la participacion ciudadana mas alla de las elecciones. Argumentamos que tanto estos mitos como la (ficticia) confrontacion entre politica directa e indirecta ha generado falsas oposiciones y reduccionismos que enmascaran el debate y limitan el estudio empirico de la innovacion democratica. Una agenda de investigacion basada en el concepto de ecologias participativas se sugiere para el entendimiento de los mecanismos de participacion en forma sistematica.","PeriodicalId":42552,"journal":{"name":"Recerca-Revista de Pensament & Analisi","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78024484","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.6035/RECERCA.2020.25.1.6
Ernesto Ganuza, Maria Menendez-Blanco
In early 2019 Madrid launched the first permanent citizen participation scheme in which members are chosen by lot: the Observatory of the City. Although the scheme was abandoned by the new government after the May 2019 elections, the Madrid experiment raises important questions about democracy. The project is another example of the growing prominence that the draw has acquired in many countries, as an ideal element to organise and order the participation of people in political affairs. In this paper we describe the first steps of this scheme and also highlight the features that make the draw in Madrid a unique experience both because of the implications of the use of the draw, and from the point of view of similar schemes that are being carried out in other parts of the world. Madrid ha puesto en marcha, desde inicios del ano 2019, la primera experiencia de participacion ciudadana permanente cuyos miembros son elegidos por sorteo, el Observatorio de la Ciudad. A pesar de que la experiencia fue abandonada por el nuevo Gobierno despues de las elecciones de mayo del 2019, la experiencia madrilena plantea importantes cuestiones sobre la democracia. Esta experiencia se suma al creciente protagonismo que ha adquirido el sorteo en muchos paises, como un elemento idoneo para organizar y ordenar la participacion de la gente en los asuntos politicos. En este trabajo exponemos los primeros pasos de esta experiencia, asi como destacamos los rasgos que hacen del sorteo en Madrid una experiencia singular, tanto por las implicaciones que tiene el uso del sorteo como desde el punto de vista de las experiencias similares que se hacen en otras partes del mundo.
{"title":"¿Te ha tocado? El sorteo llega a la política de Madrid.","authors":"Ernesto Ganuza, Maria Menendez-Blanco","doi":"10.6035/RECERCA.2020.25.1.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6035/RECERCA.2020.25.1.6","url":null,"abstract":"In early 2019 Madrid launched the first permanent citizen participation scheme in which members are chosen by lot: the Observatory of the City. Although the scheme was abandoned by the new government after the May 2019 elections, the Madrid experiment raises important questions about democracy. The project is another example of the growing prominence that the draw has acquired in many countries, as an ideal element to organise and order the participation of people in political affairs. In this paper we describe the first steps of this scheme and also highlight the features that make the draw in Madrid a unique experience both because of the implications of the use of the draw, and from the point of view of similar schemes that are being carried out in other parts of the world. Madrid ha puesto en marcha, desde inicios del ano 2019, la primera experiencia de participacion ciudadana permanente cuyos miembros son elegidos por sorteo, el Observatorio de la Ciudad. A pesar de que la experiencia fue abandonada por el nuevo Gobierno despues de las elecciones de mayo del 2019, la experiencia madrilena plantea importantes cuestiones sobre la democracia. Esta experiencia se suma al creciente protagonismo que ha adquirido el sorteo en muchos paises, como un elemento idoneo para organizar y ordenar la participacion de la gente en los asuntos politicos. En este trabajo exponemos los primeros pasos de esta experiencia, asi como destacamos los rasgos que hacen del sorteo en Madrid una experiencia singular, tanto por las implicaciones que tiene el uso del sorteo como desde el punto de vista de las experiencias similares que se hacen en otras partes del mundo.","PeriodicalId":42552,"journal":{"name":"Recerca-Revista de Pensament & Analisi","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71039726","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.6035/recerca.2020.25.1.4
R. Camargo
El debate entre redistribucion y reconocimiento que protagonizaron Nancy Fraser y Judith Butler permite reabrir una discusion de la teoria del populismo, a saber: ?como construir la universalidad de la politica en un contexto de demandas socioeconomicas irresueltas y de luchas de reconocimiento ascendentes? Tres modelos estan en juego, los cuales adquieren particular relevancia en el contexto latinoamericano actual de ascenso de las derechas. El de Fraser, donde prima la igualdad y la supeditacion de las diferencias. El de Laclau-Mouffe, donde la universalidad es una relacion hegemonica. Y el de Butler, en donde la unica universalidad posible es la que mantiene el conflicto de modos politicamente productivos. Al final, se argumenta que el giro de las izquierdas en favor de las luchas culturales no ha sido el culpable de la emergencia de los neofascismos tipo Bolsonaro y se postula una defensa de la universalidad del populismo democratico. The debate upon redistribution and recognition lead by Nancy Fraser and Judith Butler allows reopening a dormant discussion in the populist theory: how to construct a universality of politics in a context of unresolved socioeconomic demands and recognition struggles in ascent? Three models appear to be at stake, all of which acquire a particular relevance in the current context at Latin America and its rise of the right wing. Fraser’s answer, in which equality is preferred. Laclau-Mouffe’s answer, in which this universality is a hegemonic relationship. And Butler’s, in which the only possible universality is that which holds the conflict in politically productive ways. We will recover this debate seeking to clarify a substantial misunderstanding: that the turn of left wing politics towards cultural struggles is to blame for the rise of Bolsonaro-like neofascisms and we suggest a defence of a democratic populist universality.
南希·弗雷泽(Nancy Fraser)和朱迪思·巴特勒(Judith Butler)领导的关于再分配和承认的辩论，重新开启了民粹主义理论的讨论，即:在社会经济需求未解决和承认斗争上升的背景下，如何构建政治的普遍性?有三种模式在发挥作用，在当前拉丁美洲右翼崛起的背景下，这三种模式具有特别的相关性。在弗雷泽，平等和服从差异是最重要的。在拉克劳-穆夫，普遍性是一种霸权关系。在巴特勒的观点中，唯一可能的普遍性是以政治上富有成效的方式维持冲突。最后，本文认为，支持文化斗争的左翼转变并不是博尔索纳罗型新法西斯主义出现的原因，并主张捍卫民主民粹主义的普遍性。南希·弗雷泽(Nancy Fraser)和朱迪思·巴特勒(Judith Butler)领导的关于再分配和承认的辩论，使民粹主义理论中一个悬而未决的讨论得以重新展开:如何在未解决的社会经济需求和承认斗争的背景下构建政治的普遍性?三models的to be at stake, all of which acquire特定的in the current context at Latin America and its rise of the right翼。= =地理= =根据美国人口普查局的数据，该县总面积为，其中土地和(1.)水。= =地理= =根据美国人口普查，这个县的面积为。And巴特勒’s in which the only中可能存在的普遍性is that which的the conflict供资政治途径。我们将恢复这场辩论，试图澄清一个重大误解:左派政治转向文化斗争是导致博尔索纳罗式新法西斯主义兴起的原因，我们建议捍卫民主民粹主义的普遍性。
{"title":"El problema de la Universalidad en la Teoría Populista: En defensa de un Populismo Democrático","authors":"R. Camargo","doi":"10.6035/recerca.2020.25.1.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6035/recerca.2020.25.1.4","url":null,"abstract":"El debate entre redistribucion y reconocimiento que protagonizaron Nancy Fraser y Judith Butler permite reabrir una discusion de la teoria del populismo, a saber: ?como construir la universalidad de la politica en un contexto de demandas socioeconomicas irresueltas y de luchas de reconocimiento ascendentes? Tres modelos estan en juego, los cuales adquieren particular relevancia en el contexto latinoamericano actual de ascenso de las derechas. El de Fraser, donde prima la igualdad y la supeditacion de las diferencias. El de Laclau-Mouffe, donde la universalidad es una relacion hegemonica. Y el de Butler, en donde la unica universalidad posible es la que mantiene el conflicto de modos politicamente productivos. Al final, se argumenta que el giro de las izquierdas en favor de las luchas culturales no ha sido el culpable de la emergencia de los neofascismos tipo Bolsonaro y se postula una defensa de la universalidad del populismo democratico. The debate upon redistribution and recognition lead by Nancy Fraser and Judith Butler allows reopening a dormant discussion in the populist theory: how to construct a universality of politics in a context of unresolved socioeconomic demands and recognition struggles in ascent? Three models appear to be at stake, all of which acquire a particular relevance in the current context at Latin America and its rise of the right wing. Fraser’s answer, in which equality is preferred. Laclau-Mouffe’s answer, in which this universality is a hegemonic relationship. And Butler’s, in which the only possible universality is that which holds the conflict in politically productive ways. We will recover this debate seeking to clarify a substantial misunderstanding: that the turn of left wing politics towards cultural struggles is to blame for the rise of Bolsonaro-like neofascisms and we suggest a defence of a democratic populist universality.","PeriodicalId":42552,"journal":{"name":"Recerca-Revista de Pensament & Analisi","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71039574","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：