Politics, Institutions and Social Struggles: Beyond Pure Normativism and Strong Institutionalism in Political Theory

Leno Francisco Danner
{"title":"Politics, Institutions and Social Struggles: Beyond Pure Normativism and Strong Institutionalism in Political Theory","authors":"Leno Francisco Danner","doi":"10.22409/REP.V8I15.39829","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, I criticize the tendency in contemporary philosophical-political theory to affirm both pure normativism and strong institutionalism as the heart of democracy, denying a political core not only to social classes, but also to social struggles, which define the main social, cultural and political dynamics, institutionalized and non-institutionalized. The association between pure normativism and strong institutionalism leads, on the one hand, to the separation and opposition between normative foundations and social classes and social struggles, as well as, on the other hand, to the institutional monopolization both of political legitimation and social evolution, because institutions exclusively assume the guard, the legitimation and the public boosting of social normativism. Pure normativism and strong institutionalism, in other words, reduce politics to institutional and systemic politics, as they reduce political subjects to institutional legal staffs, as political parties and technical elites, attributing a peripheral role to social classes and social struggles, a peripheral role also to the politicity of social and institutional life. I argue that this harmful tendency of many philosophical-political theories, fundamentally in the spectrum of liberalism and social democracy, which suffer from a historical-sociological blindness, must be substituted with the affirmation of the centrality of social classes as the real political subjects of social evolution, as well as of the centrality of social struggles as the political-normative basis to the definition of institutional designs, social evolution and economic structures","PeriodicalId":282442,"journal":{"name":"Revista Estudos Políticos","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Estudos Políticos","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22409/REP.V8I15.39829","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this article, I criticize the tendency in contemporary philosophical-political theory to affirm both pure normativism and strong institutionalism as the heart of democracy, denying a political core not only to social classes, but also to social struggles, which define the main social, cultural and political dynamics, institutionalized and non-institutionalized. The association between pure normativism and strong institutionalism leads, on the one hand, to the separation and opposition between normative foundations and social classes and social struggles, as well as, on the other hand, to the institutional monopolization both of political legitimation and social evolution, because institutions exclusively assume the guard, the legitimation and the public boosting of social normativism. Pure normativism and strong institutionalism, in other words, reduce politics to institutional and systemic politics, as they reduce political subjects to institutional legal staffs, as political parties and technical elites, attributing a peripheral role to social classes and social struggles, a peripheral role also to the politicity of social and institutional life. I argue that this harmful tendency of many philosophical-political theories, fundamentally in the spectrum of liberalism and social democracy, which suffer from a historical-sociological blindness, must be substituted with the affirmation of the centrality of social classes as the real political subjects of social evolution, as well as of the centrality of social struggles as the political-normative basis to the definition of institutional designs, social evolution and economic structures
政治、制度与社会斗争:超越政治理论中的纯粹规范主义与强烈制度主义
在这篇文章中,我批评了当代哲学政治理论中的一种倾向,即将纯粹的规范主义和强烈的制度主义都肯定为民主的核心,不仅否认社会阶级的政治核心,也否认社会斗争的政治核心,而社会斗争定义了主要的社会、文化和政治动态,制度化的和非制度化的。纯粹规范主义和强制度主义之间的联系,一方面导致了规范基础与社会阶级和社会斗争之间的分离和对立,另一方面导致了政治合法化和社会演变的制度垄断,因为制度完全承担了社会规范主义的守卫、合法化和公共推动。换句话说,纯粹的规范主义和强烈的制度主义将政治简化为制度和系统的政治,因为它们将政治主体简化为制度上的法律人员,政党和技术精英,将社会阶级和社会斗争归因于边缘角色,也将社会和制度生活的政治归因于边缘角色。我认为,许多哲学-政治理论的这种有害倾向,基本上是在自由主义和社会民主主义的范围内,它们遭受历史-社会学的盲目性,必须用肯定社会阶级的中心地位作为社会演变的真正政治主体,以及社会斗争的中心地位作为制度设计、社会演变和经济结构定义的政治规范基础来取代
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信