David Hume and contractualism

David Hume belonged to the consecuencialist philosophical tendency, in which is included utilitarianism. This tendency was opposed to the normativism philosophy, in which is enrolled contractualism. This article analyzes the critique made by David Hume, from the utilitarianism perspective, against contractualism. The major philosophers of contractualism are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau. Hume implemented three arguments in opposition to them: 1) historic: the social contract does not have any practical testing. Therefore it could not be presented as the foundation of the state; 2) philosophical: it is not the duty, but the interest that moves men to seek the formation of the political authority; 3) social: in the consciousness of the people, there is no trace of the social contract.Utilitarianism was one of the philosophical tendencies that finished the theoretical hegemony that contractualism had during the XVII and the XVIII centuries. Nonetheless from the historical and social point of view, the liberalization movements in many parts of the world, at that time, were inspired by contractualism. It means that from the theoretical point of view, utilitarianism, certainly, stressed the empirical origins of the state but not the rational justification of the political Authority. Hume was unable to understand the normative force that contractualism owns, which inspires human action.

Household "ethnoscapes" and rite of passage: meaning and chronicity of the diagnosis in schizophrenia

Based on the results of an ethnographic study with people diagnosed with schizophrenia and their relatives in Barcelona and Tarragona along one year, I problematize the transformation of roles and relationships inside the household from the first burst and the assignation of a diagnosis as rite of passage. I appeal to a cultural interpretation of family, understanding the family group as a specific ethnoscape. I analyze the chronicity meaning, and its consequences in the conformation of the “role of sick person” in the context of parental relationships. I also discuss the paradoxes in terms of autonomy for the affected persons because of the projection of cultural connotation of chronicity.