Consenso e conflito: uma reconstrução da teoria crítica da democracia

• Ano de defesa: 2020
• Autor(a) principal: Scaldaferro, Maikon Chaider Silva
• Orientador(a): Araujo, Luiz Bernardo Leite
• Banca de defesa: Braga, Antonio Frederico Saturnino Antonio Frederico Saturnino , Dutra, Delamar José Volpato , Velasco, Marina Isabel , Pereira, Taís Silva
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Filosofia
• Departamento: Centro de Ciências Sociais::Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas
• País: Brasil
• Palavras-chave em Português: Filosofia; Democracia - Filosofia; Teoria crítica; Agir comunicativo; Lutas por reconhecimento
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: Democracy; Critical theory; Communicative action; Struggle for recognition
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CIENCIAS HUMANAS::FILOSOFIA
• Link de acesso: http://www.bdtd.uerj.br/handle/1/16467

Philosophers Jürgen Habermas and Axel Honneth developed two different models for the Critical Theory of democracy, both aimed at critically analyzing the social pathologies that affect democracies and introducing a normative proposal that indicates how the institutional arrangements of a democratic policy should be. While Habermas begins with an analysis of the idea of consensus, understood here as communicative action, Honneth starts with an investigation of social conflicts presented as struggles for recognition. Our work investigates the two theoretical models developed by these thinkers. We defend the thesis that a better understanding of democratic politics can be achieved through a critical synthesis of the two approaches. In this sense, we reject the idea that the two models are competitors and that we must choose either one or the other. Our approach uses a method that critical theorists call “reconstruction.” This method consists of decomposing a theory into parts and then recomposing it in a new form, so that the theory more effectively reaches its end. At the end of our work, it will be possible to understand the advantages of considering the theoretical models of Habermas and Honneth as complementary. We believe that this critical synthesis will allow a broader view of the challenges that democratic politics needs to face. Moreover, it will be possible to identify and understand the questions that have not been answered by the Critical Theory of democracy, questions that need to be taken seriously by anyone who wants to think about “how democracy is possible.”