Aportes de las teorías sociológicas a la discusión de la ontología. Los casos de Luhmann, Habermas y Latour

En este trabajo se discuten los aportes de la teoría sociológica contemporánea al debate filosófico y científico de la ontología, para ello son cotejados los componentes ontológicos de la Teoría General de Sistemas Sociales de Niklas Luhmann, lla Teoría de la Acción Comunicativa de Jürgen Habermas y la Actor-Network Theory de Bruno Latour.

Unraveling EU Policies: the ““Common Basic Principles”” and the ““European Integration Fund”” as a technology of government

this paper is about EU “soft policies” on immigrant integration. It analyzes the “Common Basic Principles” (CBPs) and the “European Integration Fund” (EIF), two devices that have been recently established within this framework. It adopts the theoretical perspective of the “anthropology of policy” and “governmentality studies”. It shows the context of birth of the aforementioned devices, as well as their functioning and the assessment done by the actors implied in the elaboration/implementation/evaluation of the related policies. It is based both on documentary research as well as direct observation and interviews done to the actors implied. It concludes that the PBC and the EIF should be considered as a “technology of government”, that strives to align the conduct of the actors with the governmental aims, as well as it produces specific practices and knowledge. It also underlines an intrinsic feature of many policies: their “congenital failure”, since they are (often) disputed and resignified by situated actors, who are embedded in asymmetrical power relations.

What Heraclitus and Parmenides have in common on Reality and Deception

It is usually assumed that Heraclitus is, exclusively, the philosopher of flux, diversity and opposition while Parmenides puts the case for unity and changelessness. However, there is a significant common understanding of things (though in differing contexts), not simply an accidental similarity of understanding. Both philosophers, critically, distinguish two realms: on the one hand, there is the one, common realm, identical for all, which is grasped by the ‘logos that is common’(Heraclitus) or the steady nous (Parmenides) that follows a right method in order to interpret the real. On the other hand, the realm of multiplicity seen and heard by the senses, when interpreted by ‘barbarian souls’, is not understood in its common unity. Analogously, when grasped by the wandering weak nous it does not comprehend the real’s basic unity. In this paper I attempt to defend the thesis that both thinkers claim that the common logos (to put it in Heraclitean terms) or the steady intellect (to say it with Parmenides) grasp and affirm the unity of the real.