增选还是自治?回顾和重新定位当代阿根廷社会运动和国家研究的笔记

F. Longa
{"title":"增选还是自治?回顾和重新定位当代阿根廷社会运动和国家研究的笔记","authors":"F. Longa","doi":"10.46468/rsaap.13.2.a2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article analyzes the different theoretical perspectives from which the relationship between social movements and the State was observed in Argentina recently. To this, two large perspectives are identified, ranging from framing social movements as able to preserve themselves against state determinations, or as subsumed to those bureaucratic -and no emancipatory-determinations. One of the conclusions of the work indicates that in the academic debate between the perspectives mentioned, some concepts were used as synonyms and some experiences were homologated under categories that need to be specified. For this, the article contributes to identify common points rarely noticed between both perspectives and proposes a redefinition of some key terms in the relationship between movements and the State such as: bureaucratization, demobilization and cooptation.","PeriodicalId":266034,"journal":{"name":"REVISTA SAAP","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"¿Cooptados o autónomos? Notas para revisar –y reorientar– los estudios entre movimientos sociales y Estado en la Argentina contemporánea\",\"authors\":\"F. Longa\",\"doi\":\"10.46468/rsaap.13.2.a2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article analyzes the different theoretical perspectives from which the relationship between social movements and the State was observed in Argentina recently. To this, two large perspectives are identified, ranging from framing social movements as able to preserve themselves against state determinations, or as subsumed to those bureaucratic -and no emancipatory-determinations. One of the conclusions of the work indicates that in the academic debate between the perspectives mentioned, some concepts were used as synonyms and some experiences were homologated under categories that need to be specified. For this, the article contributes to identify common points rarely noticed between both perspectives and proposes a redefinition of some key terms in the relationship between movements and the State such as: bureaucratization, demobilization and cooptation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":266034,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"REVISTA SAAP\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"REVISTA SAAP\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.46468/rsaap.13.2.a2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"REVISTA SAAP","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46468/rsaap.13.2.a2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文分析了最近在阿根廷观察社会运动与国家关系的不同理论视角。对此,有两种观点被确定,一种是将社会运动视为能够保护自己不受国家决定的影响,另一种是将其纳入那些官僚主义的决定——而不是解放主义的决定。研究的一个结论是,在上述观点之间的学术争论中,一些概念被用作同义词,一些经验被归入需要明确的类别。为此,本文有助于确定两种观点之间很少注意到的共同点,并建议重新定义运动与国家之间关系中的一些关键术语,例如:官僚化、遣散和征用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
¿Cooptados o autónomos? Notas para revisar –y reorientar– los estudios entre movimientos sociales y Estado en la Argentina contemporánea
This article analyzes the different theoretical perspectives from which the relationship between social movements and the State was observed in Argentina recently. To this, two large perspectives are identified, ranging from framing social movements as able to preserve themselves against state determinations, or as subsumed to those bureaucratic -and no emancipatory-determinations. One of the conclusions of the work indicates that in the academic debate between the perspectives mentioned, some concepts were used as synonyms and some experiences were homologated under categories that need to be specified. For this, the article contributes to identify common points rarely noticed between both perspectives and proposes a redefinition of some key terms in the relationship between movements and the State such as: bureaucratization, demobilization and cooptation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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