Suchergebnisse

The paper examines a possible ethics for the current scenario, in order to bring human beings closer together and awaken in them a feeling of solidarity. For such an examination, at first, theories such as the utilitarianism reviewed by Rawls are questioned. It searches for a valid criterion for all participants of a certain universalism or for a real and non-exclusive "us". The call for solidarity is proposed as a way of uniting people, as opposed to selfishness. Then solidarity is defended, according to Richard Rorty. This philosopher affirms the need for an agreement among the members of society, because only then would there be a real "we". Next, there is the question about how to make people more supportive, but without resorting to the traditional metaphysical perspective on humanity: there is a bet on the existence of shared characteristics that lead to democratic equality, however, respecting the differences of each one. It is still questioned what would lead the richest to sympathize with the poorest, observing the proposals made by Rorty about raising awareness, presenting the risk of poverty to the rich and appealing to the feeling of humanity. Finally, Rortyan egalitarianism is considered, according to which solidarity is beyond rationality. It would be historically constituted and based on the relationship with the other, on the common feeling of vulnerability, crucial to society in times of pandemic.

This paper seeks to reflect, from a Discours Analysis (DA) perspective, about two Aurea Carolina's interviews after being elected a councilwoman, with an expressive vote, in Belo Horizonte / MG in 2016.The analysis of this young black, slum dweller, with "no political sponsorship" woman speeches leads us to an impression that we are facing a "new way of doing politics". From this point of view, the proposal was try to understand how the social representation and the imaginaries can perform the ethos built by this councilwoman during her power achieving process. Áurea emerges in the political scene with a "collective campaign of multiplicity", embracing discourses of identity, egalitarianism and solidarity, which for Charaudeau (2006) go together with the construction of a "popular sovereignty" imaginary (the democracy's myth). In this context, a collective demand for a specific kind of leadership can be seen, an ethos that in a certain way coincides with the image the councilwoman reveals. Such perception shows that the imaginaries around this political subject, suppose an idea that her proximity to the poorer classes can legitimize her as a representative for these groups. ; Este trabalho procura refletir, sob o prisma da Análise do Discurso (AD), acerca de duas entrevistas concedidas por Áurea Carolina após ser eleita vereadora, com votação expressiva, por Belo Horizonte/MG em 2016. A análise das falas dessa mulher jovem, negra, de periferia e "sem apadrinhamento político" nos leva à impressão de estarmos diante de uma "nova forma de fazer política". Dentro de tal ótica, a proposta foi tentar compreender como as representações sociais e os imaginários podem estar presentes no ethos construído pela vereadora nessa escalada ao poder. Áurea surge na cena política com uma "campanha coletiva da multiplicidade", valendo-se de discursos que pautavam o direito à identidade, o igualitarismo e a solidariedade, o que para Charaudeau (2006) coincide com a construção de um imaginário da "soberania popular" (mito da democracia). Nesse contexto, percebe-se a demanda de uma coletividade por um tipo específico de liderança, um ethos em certa medida coincidente com a imagem que a vereadora deixa transparecer. Tal percepção nos mostra que os imaginários, também circulantes em torno desse sujeito político, envolvem a crença de que a sua proximidade com as classes menos favorecidas pode legitimá-la como representante desses grupos.

This article examines the concept of 'populism' in the light of its neoliberal opponents' discourse. The heuristic scope of the term, which its current political use has been devaluing, both in lay and scientific debates, is put into question. Starting from Quentin Skinner's theory, we propose a political reading of the concept and postulate that its use (and, therefore, the content assigned to it) teaches us much (or more) about the person, movement, or party using it than about the party or the person that it designates. The anti-populist discourse is at the same time a rejection of the people/ethnos (nationalism as the essence of populism), a denial of the people/démos (populism as a pathology of democracy because it establishes the tyranny of majority against the elite), an accusation of the people/pléthos (the fragile mass manipulated by a leader and the intellectuals), and a critique of the 'idolatry of State' on the part of populists who oppose economic liberalism in the name of an obsessive egalitarianism. We conclude that 'populism' is a 'kampfbegrief' (a 'battle concept'), as totalitarianism once was and it may be seen as a continuation of Cold War anticommunism. ; Este artículo examina el concepto de "populismo" a la luz del discurso de sus oponentes neoliberales. Se cuestiona el alcance heurístico del término, que su uso político actual ha ido desvalorizando, tanto en los debates profanos como en los científicos. Partiendo de la teoría de Quentin Skinner, se propone una lectura política del concepto y se postula que su uso (y el contenido por ende que se le da) nos enseña tanto (o más) sobre la persona, el movimiento o el partido que lo usa que sobre el partido o la persona que designa. El discurso antipopulista es a la vez un rechazo del pueblo/etnos (el nacionalismo como esencia del populismo), una negación del pueblo/démos (el populismo como patología de la democracia porque establece la tiranía de la mayoría en contra de la élite), una acusación al pueblo/pléthos (la masa frágil manipulada por un líder e intelectuales) y una crítica a la "estadolatría" de los populistas opuestos al liberalismo económico en nombre de un igualitarismo obsesivo. Se concluye que el "populismo" es un "kampfbegrief" (un "concepto de combate"), como lo fue otrora el totalitarismo y puede entenderse como una continuación del anticomunismo de la Guerra Fría.