Mónica Brito Vieira

Books and canon building in sociology: The case of Mind, Self, and Society

This paper discusses the canonization process of George Herbert Mead (1863–1931) in sociology through a recounting of the history of the book Mind, Self, and Society (1934). The relation between Mead and this particular work has no parallel in the history of sociological theory. Although the book was not written by Mead, or even organized under his direction, it has been through it that generations of academics and students have come in contact with Mead’s ideas. There are two main goals behind this exercise in historical reconstruction. First, the study of how Mind, Self, and Society came into existence and acquired classical standing offers an insightful view of the contingency and the complexity of canon formation. It is on this continuous process of reception, through which certain texts and authors acquire classical value, which the second part of the article focuses. It discusses the extent to which the history of the reception of Mead’s ideas would have been very different, and the impact of his ideas for theory building substantially larger, if it had been based, not on a posthumously published transcript, but on his own work.

Democracia deliberativa hoje: desafios e perspectivas

Este e a versao final do artigo. Apareceu pela primeira vez pela Universidade de Brasilia Instituto de Ciencia Politica via http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-33522013000100005

Founders and Re-founders: Struggles of Self-authorized Representation

In this article my argument is twofold. First, I maintain that it is not possible to either understand or practically initiate democratic foundlings except through self-authorized claims of representation appealing to an extra-legal source of authority, that is, a prefigured people, constructed around a particular claim to what should be common. Second, I contend that self-authorized claims to a prefigured people that are performed to and retroactively validated by the existing people can open up opportunities for the people to self-constitute democratically.

RE-Imagi(n)ing Leviathan

Over the years great care has been lavished by scholars of Hobbes on decoding the image produced for Leviathan by Abraham Bosse with the creative input of Thomas Hobbes. This article focusses instead on the reception and remaking of this image, arguably the most iconic image in the statist imaginary. Attention turns here, in particular, to two contemporary artworks, Do Ho Suh’s Some/One (2005) and Ernesto Neto’s Leviathan Thot (2006). Both of these artworks visually recall and re-problematize Hobbes’s frontispiece: its depiction of the political body and of the complex relationships between the elements comprising it. They therefore offer us a curious perspective from which to re-engage with Hobbes’s work and the political aesthetics that has immortalized it.

Populism as a logic of political action

This article offers a new understanding of populism. The argument unfolds as follows: first, the populist literature is reviewed and two main approaches are identified: ontic and logic-oriented, the more important of which is the Schmitt-Laclau logic of enmity. While the authors broadly agree with Laclau’s criticism of ontic approaches, they endorse neither his ontological understanding of enmity, nor his claim that populism is politics, and enmity is the logic of populism. Next, the origins of populism are located in a paradox at the heart of democracy. Democracy defines itself as a community of inclusion, yet exclusion is constitutive of inclusion, including therefore democratic inclusion. Then is discussed what the authors believe to be the true logic of populism: resentment. Unlike enmity, which functions in Laclau’s populist theory as an ontology of non-identity, resentment operates within a rivalrous framework, which presupposes identification between the parts and refers to a set of normative commitments. Finally, the article concludes by presenting an understanding of populism as a specific logic of political action.

Waiting for Godot? Welfare Attitudes in Portugal Before and After the Financial Crisis

Do attitudes towards the welfare state change in response to economic crises? Addressing this question is sometimes difficult because of the lack of longitudinal data. This article deals with this empirical challenge using survey data from the 2008 European Social Survey and from our own follow-up survey of Spring 2013 to track welfare attitudes at the brink and at the peak of the socio-economic crisis in one of the hardest hit countries: Portugal. The literature on social policy preferences predicts an increased polarization in opinions towards the welfare state between different groups within society – in particular between labour market insiders and outsiders. However the prediction has scarcely been tested empirically. A notoriously dualized country, Portugal provides a critical setting in which to test this hypothesis. The results show attitudinal change and this varies according to labour market vulnerability. However, we observe no polarisation and advance alternative explanations for why this is so.

Leviathan Contra Leviathan

This article offers a comparative discussion of the two versions of Hobbes’s masterpiece—the 1651 English Leviathan and the 1668 Latin Leviathan, with a view to examining the significance of some of the main continuities and differences between the two works.