Neopatrimonialismo, diferenciação funcional e a relação centro-periferia revisitada

IF 4.1 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Marcos Abraão Fernandes Ribeiro, Roberto Dutra Torres Junior
{"title":"Neopatrimonialismo, diferenciação funcional e a relação centro-periferia revisitada","authors":"Marcos Abraão Fernandes Ribeiro, Roberto Dutra Torres Junior","doi":"10.5007/2175-7984.2020.E66958","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article aims to deny the theoretical validity of the concept of neopatrimonialism, formulated bySimon Schwartzman, in order to understand the dilemmas of political exclusion in contemporary Brazil, since the concept is based on an apologetic reading of Max Weber’s diagnosis about the West. From the bibliographical analysis, we argue that the concept of neopatrimonialism is stuck to an empirical and theoretically unsustainable vision of political modernity, which idealizes the democratic and constitutional basis of modern political power and ignores its autocratic dimension and non-constitutional. Next, we present as a theoretical alternative the political sociology of Niklas Luhmann, for it describes modern politics as divided in the circuits of formal and constitutional power, and informal and non-constitutional. In this way, we can analyze the processes of political exclusion in the center and in the periphery without the presence ofidealizations about the central countries.","PeriodicalId":47847,"journal":{"name":"Politics & Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics & Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-7984.2020.E66958","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

This article aims to deny the theoretical validity of the concept of neopatrimonialism, formulated bySimon Schwartzman, in order to understand the dilemmas of political exclusion in contemporary Brazil, since the concept is based on an apologetic reading of Max Weber’s diagnosis about the West. From the bibliographical analysis, we argue that the concept of neopatrimonialism is stuck to an empirical and theoretically unsustainable vision of political modernity, which idealizes the democratic and constitutional basis of modern political power and ignores its autocratic dimension and non-constitutional. Next, we present as a theoretical alternative the political sociology of Niklas Luhmann, for it describes modern politics as divided in the circuits of formal and constitutional power, and informal and non-constitutional. In this way, we can analyze the processes of political exclusion in the center and in the periphery without the presence ofidealizations about the central countries.
新世袭主义、功能分化与中心-边缘关系的再审视
本文旨在否定西蒙·施瓦茨曼提出的新继承主义概念的理论有效性,以理解当代巴西政治排斥的困境,因为该概念是基于对马克斯·韦伯关于西方的诊断的道歉解读。通过文献分析,我们认为新世袭主义的概念固守于一种实证的、理论上不可持续的政治现代性视野,它理想化了现代政权的民主和宪政基础,忽视了其专制维度和非宪政性。接下来,我们提出了Niklas Luhmann的政治社会学作为一种理论选择,因为它将现代政治描述为分为正式权力和宪法权力,非正式权力和非宪法权力。这样,我们就可以在不存在关于中心国家的协议的情况下分析中心和外围的政治排斥过程。
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
Politics & Society
Politics & Society Multiple-
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
4.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Politics & Society is a peer-reviewed journal. All submitted papers are read by a rotating editorial board member. If a paper is deemed potentially publishable, it is sent to another board member, who, if agreeing that it is potentially publishable, sends it to a third board member. If and only if all three agree, the paper is sent to the entire editorial board for consideration at board meetings. The editorial board meets three times a year, and the board members who are present (usually between 9 and 14) make decisions through a deliberative process that also considers written reports from absent members. Unlike many journals which rely on 1–3 individual blind referee reports and a single editor with final say, the peers who decide whether to accept submitted work are thus the full editorial board of the journal, comprised of scholars from various disciplines, who discuss papers openly, with author names known, at meetings. Editors are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest when evaluating manuscripts and to recuse themselves from voting if such a potential exists.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信