scholarly journals Os limites da democracia representativa: atomização, passividade e afastamento da política

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 236-247
Author(s):  
Tamiris Moreira Simão
Keyword(s):  

Ellen Wood, em Democracia contra o capitalismo, defende duas importantes teses: o capitalismo inaugura um novo tipo de exploração e de extorsão da classe trabalhadora que não depende diretamente da extorsão do Estado; com isso, torna-se possível que alguns direitos políticos sejam estendidos a um número maior de pessoas, com a instituição da “democracia representativa”. Por outro lado, a participação política dos trabalhadores é limitada: ao identificar a democracia com a representação política, as classes dominantes criaram uma ilusão de participação política popular que é, na verdade, extremamente limitada, ou quase nula. Neste artigo, pretendemos mostrar alguns dos principais limites da democracia representativa, e como essa democracia atomiza os cidadãos e os mantém afastados de uma participação política efetiva. Para isso, recorreremos a outros teóricos influentes como Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Bernard Manin, Hanna Pitkin, Noam Chomsky.

1975 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 433-433
Author(s):  
HERBERT H. CLARK
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Virginia TASSINARI ◽  
Ezio MANZINI ◽  
Maurizio TELI ◽  
Liesbeth HUYBRECHTS

The issue of design and democracy is an urgent and rather controversial one. Democracy has always been a core theme in design research, but in the past years it has shifted in meaning. The current discourse in design research that has been working in a participatory way on common issues in given local contexts, has developed an enhanced focus on rethinking democracy. This is the topic of some recent design conferences, such PDC2018, Nordes2017 and DRS2018, and of the DESIS Philosophy Talk #6 “Regenerating Democracy?” (www.desis-philosophytalks.org), from which this track originates. To reflect on the role and responsibility of designers in a time where democracy in its various forms is often put at risk seems an urgent matter to us. The concern for the ways in which the democratic discourse is put at risk in many different parts of the word is registered outside the design community (for instance by philosophers such as Noam Chomsky), as well as within (see for instance Manzini’s and Margolin’s call Design Stand Up (http://www.democracy-design.org). Therefore, the need to articulate a discussion on this difficult matter, and to find a common vocabulary we can share to talk about it. One of the difficulties encountered for instance when discussing this issue, is that the word “democracy” is understood in different ways, in relation to the traditions and contexts in which it is framed. Philosophically speaking, there are diverse discourses on democracy that currently inspire design researchers and theorists, such as Arendt, Dewey, Negri and Hardt, Schmitt, Mouffe, Rancière, Agamben, Rawls, Habermas, Latour, Gramsci, whose positions on this topic are very diverse. How can these authors guide us to further articulate this discussion? In which ways can these philosophers support and enrich design’s innovation discourses on design and democracy, and guide our thinking in addressing sensitive and yet timely questions, such as what design can do in what seems to be dark times for democracy, and whether design can possibly contribute to enrich the current democratic ecosystems, making them more strong and resilient?


Author(s):  
Simon Morgan Wortham

This chapter evaluates the question of the ‘complex’ in a range of scientific, political and psychoanalytic contexts, asking not only where lines of connection and demarcation occur among specific distributions of meaning, value, theory and practice; but also probing the psychoanalytic corpus, notably Freud’s writings on the notion of a ‘complex’, in order to reframe various implications of the idea that this term tends to resist its own utilisation as both an object and form of analysis. This section establishes connections between three sets of theoretical questions: the common practice of describing modernity and its wake in terms of a drive towards increasing complexity; the meaning and cultural legacy of phrases such as ‘military-industrial complex’ and sundry derivations in the political sphere; and the intricacies and ambiguities subtending the term ‘complex’ within psychoanalytic theory. As a concept that Freud both utilised and repudiated, the provocative power of the term ‘complex’ is linked to the way it thwarts various attempts at systemization (providing nonetheless an apparatus of sorts through which contemporary science, Slavoj Žižek, Noam Chomsky, Freud, Eisenhower, and post-war politics can be articulated to one another).


1997 ◽  
Vol 123 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-165
Author(s):  
Noam Chomsky ◽  
David Barsamian
Keyword(s):  

1973 ◽  
Vol 71 (11) ◽  
pp. 512-538 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josef Voss
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Lila Gleitman

This book collects the most significant papers written by Lila R. Gleitman, spanning 50 years of research on language and its acquisition. The book traces the roots of developmental psycholinguistics while presenting empirically driven arguments in favor of a rationalist theory of language acquisition. Gleitman’s work simultaneously shows how learners acquire knowledge richer than what can be found in the environment and how they use their input to acquire a specific language. The book also includes a foreword by Noam Chomsky and an introductory chapter by Jeffrey Lidz contextualizing Gleitman’s work in the transition from structuralism to mentalist architectures in linguistics.


2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Freidin ◽  
Juan Uriagereka ◽  
David Berlinski

The following remarks attempt to place Jean-Roger Vergnaud’s letter to Noam Chomsky and Howard Lasnik more centrally within the history of modern generative grammar from its inception to the present.


2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-101
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Derra

The author identifies selected implicit or not fully explicit assumptions made by Noam Chomsky in his theory of language. Through a careful examination of Chomsky's work, she aims to present the solutions this linguist proposes with respect to two fundamental questions: the question of methodology and the question of the ontological status of language. After reviewing the central theses of Chomsky's theory in the first part of the paper, she turns to the question that is mentioned in the title of this paper, that is, the reservations regarding the assumptions underlying Chomsky's work.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document