首页> 外文期刊>DoisPontos >Systemic theory, strong institutionalism and representative politics: another way to a radical democratic politics
【24h】

Systemic theory, strong institutionalism and representative politics: another way to a radical democratic politics

机译:系统论,强大的制度主义和代议制政治:实现激进民主政治的另一种方式

获取原文
       

摘要

Starting from the critic against two theoretical-political points of the Jürgen Habermas’ theory of modernity, i.e. his understanding of the Western modernization as systemic institutional self-differentiation, self-referentiality and self-subsistence, and his conception of a juridical-political procedural paradigm based on such notion of modernization, I argue that the systemic theory concerning modernization leads to strong institutionalism and to depoliticization of the institutional structuration, legitimation and evolution. The basic characteristic of systemic theory, which is the institutional self-referentiality and self-subsistence regarding political praxis and social normativity, autonomizes social systems of justifying and organizing themselves according to an inclusive democratic political praxis and to a biding notion of social normativity, depoliticizing them. From here emerges a radical separation between systemic institutional dynamic and democratic political-normative praxis , between institutions and civil society, in that systemic institutions become independent and closed in relation to politics and social normativity, allowing only a representative political role to social movements and citizen initiatives, centralizing and monopolizing the institutional legitimation and the social evolution inside the very own institutions. A radical democratic political praxis which can face such strong institutionalism based on the systemic theory must politicize both the liberal’s notion of Western modernization and its consequent strong institutionalism, refusing the systemic theory as epistemological-political basis to the foundation of the contemporary institutional constitution and legitimation. It signifies also the normative-political centrality of the civil society’s arena, practices and social subjects as the platform to institutional grounding and evolution.
机译:从批评者开始反对哈根马斯(JürgenHabermas)现代性理论的两个理论-政治观点,即他对西方现代化作为系统性制度性自我分化,自我指称和自我生存的理解,以及他对司法-政治程序性概念的理解。基于这种现代化概念的范式,我认为关于现代化的系统理论导致了强有力的制度主义,并使制度结构,合法化和演变去政治化。系统理论的基本特征是关于政治实践和社会规范性的制度上的自我指称和自给自足,它根据包容性的民主政治实践和社会规范性的要求概念,使证明和组织自己的社会制度自动化。他们。从这里开始,系统的制度动力与民主的政治规范实践之间,制度与公民社会之间就出现了根本性的分离,因为系统性制度相对于政治和社会规范而言变得独立和封闭,只允许社会运动和公民具有代表性的政治角色。倡议,集中和垄断机构内部的机构合法性和社会演变。激进的民主政治实践可能会面对基于系统理论的强大制度主义,必须将自由主义者的西方现代化概念及其随之而来的强大制度主义政治化,拒绝将系统理论作为当代制度性宪法和合法性基础的认识论-政治基础。 。它也标志着公民社会的舞台,实践和社会主体在规范政治上的中心地位,是制度基础和演进的平台。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号