Benhabib, Seyla, Los derechos de los otros. Barcelona, Gedisa, 2004, p.191

Fil: Guerra, Luciana Analía. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educación; Argentina.

Benhabib, Seyla, Los derechos de los otros. Barcelona, Gedisa, 2004, p.191

Fil: Guerra, Luciana Analía. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educación; Argentina.

Benhabib, Seyla, Los derechos de los otros. Barcelona, Gedisa, 2004, p.191

Fil: Guerra, Luciana Analía. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educación; Argentina.

Tarvitaanko demokratiassa keskustelua? Julkinen alue demokraattisen legitimiteetin tuottajana

Pyrin Pro gradu -tutkielmassani hahmottamaan ne tekijät, jotka konstituoivat julkista aluetta demokraattista legitimiteettiä tuottavana poliittisena foorumina. Työni keskiössä on deliberatiivisen demokratian teorian ydinajatus, että ihmiset ja ihmisryhmät kykenevät muodostamaan mielipiteensä ja tuomaan sen esille julkisissa keskusteluissa. Hyvin argumentoitu vaade ryhmän oikeuksien puolesta kerää julkista kannatusta muualtakin kuin asianomaisen ryhmän sisältä. Tämä puolestaan saa aikaan poliittisia muutoksia. Ryhmä, jota yhdistää epäoikeudenmukaisuuden kokemus, tuo agendansa julkisuuteen ja pyrkii vaikuttamaan yleiseen mielipiteeseen ja sitä kautta poliittiseen päätöksentekoon. Oleellinen kysymys tässä kontekstissa on, kuinka paljon yleisen mielipiteen tulisi vaikuttaa poliittiseen päätöksentekoon ja minkälaisiin aiheisiin poliittisesti vaikuttava yleinen mielipide on rajattu. Keskustelun julkisen alueen demokraattistra legitimiteettiä tuottavasta voimasta käynnisti Jürgen Habermasin teos Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit vuonna 1962. Olen käyttänyt kyseisen teoksen lisäksi lähteinäni Habermasin myöhäisempää tuotantoa. Habermasin pääasiallisina kommentaattoreina työssäni toimivat John Rawls, Nancy Fraser, Chantal Mouffe ja Seyla Benhabib. Tarkastelutapani on systemaattinen. Pyrin selventämään julkisen alueen käsitettä sekä liittyen julkiselle alueelle postuloituihin funktioihin, episteemiseen asemaan, sosiaaliseen ontologiaan, ekstensioon ja sitä konstituoiviin periaatteisiin. Käyn läpi deliberatiivisen demokratian teorian, poliittisen liberalismin ja agonistisen politiikan teorian käsitykset politiikan ja julkisen alueen luonteesta. Pyrin puolustamaan deliberatiivisen demokratian mukaista näkemystä julkisen alueen funktiosta. Käyn tutkielmassani läpi myös niitä ongelmia, jotka nousevat viime vuosikymmenien aikana demokraattisen päätöksenteon kannalta oleellisissa instituutionaalisissa rakanteissa tapahtuneista muutoksista. Keskeinen kysymys on, kykeneekö habermasilainen teoria vielä säilyttämään deskriptiivisen ja normatiivisen arvonsa globalisoituneessa maailmassa. Tutkimuksessani selvisi, että demokraattinen legitimiteetti vaatii tuekseen julkisen alueen mielipiteenmuodostusta. Julkista aluetta ei kuitenkaan ole tarkoituksenmukaista hahmottaa yhtenä laajana diskursiivisena areenana vaan useiden kommunikatiivisten alueiden verkostona, joista jotkut alueet ovat kattavampia kuin toiset.

A view, different proposals: Concept of gender and public policy

This article analyzes the meaning of “gender” as a category of analysis in public policy. The concept has been transferred from the feminist theories and this has meant that the United Nations and European Union have incorporated the inequality as a structural inequality and an issue justice. So, the feminist demands enter the political agenda as an integral project which is characterized by the adoption of the gender perspective and its application from a transversal methodology (“gender mainstreaming”). In this sense, the "gender ideology" is a new paradigm against the “patriarchal ideology”. Now, political actions should be articulated in a double movement of correction and promotion to achieve real equality in societies more democratic and ultimately more just.

The gendered effects of family migration law: contextual interpretation as a possible judicial remedy

At all normative levels, family migration law can disproportionally and negatively affect immigrant women’s rights in this field, producing gendered effects. In some cases, such effects are related to the normative and judicial imposition of unviable family-related models (e.g., the ʻgood mother ̕ the one-breadwinner family, or a rigid distinction between productive and reproductive work). In other cases, they are due to family migration law’s overlooking of the specific needs and difficulties of immigrant women, within their families and in the broader context of their host countries’ social and normative framework.To effectively expose and correct this gender bias, in this article I propose an alternative view of immigrant women’s right to family life, as a cluster of rights and entitlements rather than as a mono-dimensional right. As a theoretical approach, this construction is better equipped to capture the complex experiences of immigrant women in the European legal space, and to shed light on the gendered effects generated not by individual norms but by the interaction of norms that are traditionally assigned to separated legal domains (e.g., immigration law and criminal law). As a judicial strategy, this understanding is capable of prompting a consideration by domestic and supranational courts of immigrant women not as isolated individuals, but as ‘individuals in context’. I shall define this type of approach as ‘contextual interpretation’, understood as the consideration of immigrant women in the broader contexts of their families, their host societies and the normative frameworks applicable to them. Performed in a gendersensitive manner, a contextual judicial interpretation has the potential to neutralize the gendered effects of certain family migration norms. To illustrate these points, I will discuss selected judicial examples offered by the European Court on Human Rights, as well as from domestic jurisdictions of countries with a particularly high incidence of immigrant women (Italy and Spain).

Democracia deliberativa y la resolución de contiendas políticas controvertidas : Un análisis del modelo de deliberación de Seyla Benhabib

Fil: Busdygan, Daniel. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educación. Instituto de Investigaciones en Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales (UNLP-CONICET); Argentina.

Democracia deliberativa y la resolución de contiendas políticas controvertidas : Un análisis del modelo de deliberación de Seyla Benhabib

Fil: Busdygan, Daniel. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educación. Instituto de Investigaciones en Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales (UNLP-CONICET); Argentina.

Democratic Legitimacy and the Politics of Rights : A comparative analysis of the conceptual relationship between democracy and rights in contemporary political theories

Democratic Legitimacy and the Politics of Rights is a research in normative political theory, based on comparative analysis of contemporary democratic theories, classified roughly as conventional liberal, deliberative democratic and radical democratic. Its focus is on the conceptual relationship between alternative sources of democratic legitimacy: democratic inclusion and liberal rights. The relationship between rights and democracy is studied through the following questions: are rights to be seen as external constraints to democracy or as objects of democratic decision making processes? Are individual rights threatened by public participation in politics; do constitutionally protected rights limit the inclusiveness of democratic processes? Are liberal values such as individuality, autonomy and liberty; and democratic values such as equality, inclusion and popular sovereignty mutually conflictual or supportive? Analyzing feminist critique of liberal discourse, the dissertation also raises the question about Enlightenment ideals in current political debates: are the universal norms of liberal democracy inherently dependent on the rationalist grand narratives of modernity and incompatible with the ideal of diversity? Part I of the thesis introduces the sources of democratic legitimacy as presented in the alternative democratic models. Part II analyses how the relationship between rights and democracy is theorized in them. Part III contains arguments by feminists and radical democrats against the tenets of universalist liberal democratic models and responds to that critique by partly endorsing, partly rejecting it. The central argument promoted in the thesis is that while the deconstruction of modern rationalism indicates that rights are political constructions as opposed to externally given moral constraints to politics, this insight does not delegitimize the politics of universal rights as an inherent part of democratic institutions. The research indicates that democracy and universal individual rights are mutually interdependent rather than oppositional; and that democracy is more dependent on an unconditional protection of universal individual rights when it is conceived as inclusive, participatory and plural; as opposed to robust majoritarian rule. The central concepts are: liberalism, democracy, legitimacy, deliberation, inclusion, equality, diversity, conflict, public sphere, rights, individualism, universalism and contextuality. The authors discussed are e.g. John Rawls, Jürgen Habermas, Seyla Benhabib, Iris Young, Chantal Mouffe and Stephen Holmes. The research focuses on contemporary political theory, but the more classical work of John S. Mill, Benjamin Constant, Isaiah Berlin and Hannah Arendt is also included.

An Analysis of the Concept of Citizenship: Legal, Political and Social Dimensions

The thesis aims at analyzing concept of citizenship in political philosophy. The concept of citizenship is a complex one: it does not have a definitive explication, but it nevertheless is a very important category in contemporary world. Citizenship is a powerful ideal, and often the way a person is treated depends on whether he or she has the status of a citizen. Citizenship includes protection of a person’s rights both at home and abroad. It entails legal, political and social dimension: the legal status as a full member of society, the recognition of that status by fellow citizens and acting as a member of society. The thesis discusses these three dimensions. Its objective is to show how all of them, despite being insufficient in some aspects, reach something important about the concept. The main sources of the thesis are Civic Republicanism by Iseult Honohan (Routledge 2002), Republicanism by Philip Pettit (Clarendon Press 1997), and Taking Rights Seriously by Ronald Dworkin (1997). In addition, the historical part of the thesis relies mainly on the works of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, Adam Smith, Quentin Skinner, James Pocock and James Tully. The writings of Will Kymlicka, John Rawls, Chantal Mouffe, and Shane Phelan are referred to in the presentation and critique of the liberal tradition of thought. Hannah Arendt and Seyla Benhabib’s analysis of Arendt’s philosophy both address the problematic relations between human rights and nation-states as the main guarantors of rights. The chapter on group rights relies on Peter Jones’ account of corporate and collective rights, after which I continue to Seumas Miller’s essay on the (liberal) account of group rights and their relation to the concept of citizenship. Republicanism and Political Theory (2002) edited by Cécile Laborde and John Maynor is also references. David Miller and Maurizio Viroli represent the more “rooted” version of republicanism. The thesis argues that the full concept of citizenship should be seen as containing legal, political and social dimensions. The concept can be viewed from all of these three angles. The first means that citizenship is connected with certain rights, like the right to vote or stand for election, the right to property and so on. In most societies, the law guarantees these rights to every citizen. Then there is also the social dimension, which can be said to be as important as the legal one: the recognition of equality and identities of others. Finally, there is the political dimension, meaning the importance of citizens’ participation in the society, which is discussed in connection with the contemporary account of republicanism. All these issues are discussed from the point of view of groups demanding for group-specific rights and equal recognition. The challenge with these three aspects of citizenship is, however, that they are difficult to discuss under one heading. Different theories or discourses of citizenship each approach the subject from different starting points, which make reconciling them sometimes hard. The fundamental questions theories try to answer may differ radically depending on the theory. Nevertheless, in order to get the whole image of what the citizenship discourses are about all the aspects deserve to be taken into account.

Sär- eller samundervisning inom skolan i arbetet med förståelsen av våldtäkt?

Mitt syfte är att undersöka huruvida sär- eller samundervisning bör tillämpas inom skolan i arbetet med förståelsen av våldtäkt. Min metod är att använda mig av Stina Jeffners resultat från hennes undersökning om ungdomars förståelse av våldtäkt hämtade ur hennes bok Liksom våldtäkt typ… om ungdomars förståelse av våldtäkt. Som verktyg för analys använder jag mig av teoretiska perspektiv kring sär- och samundervisning och Seyla Benhabibs teori kring den deliberativa diskussionen. Jag kommer dessutom ha mina utgångspunkter i vad läroplanen för grundskolan Lpo-94 förskriver om sär- och samundervisning. Mitt resultat visar att både sär- och samundervisning bör användas inom skolan i arbetet med förståelsen av våldtäkt och den deliberativa diskussion bör även användas i detta arbete. Den deliberativa diskussionen är mest lämplig att användas i särundervisning där pojkar och flickor är åtskilda.Utifrån läroplanen Lpo-94 och dess mål kring jämställdhet och genus kan både sär- och samundervisning användas. Det har ingen betydelse huruvida man ser våldtäkt som ett samhälleligt problem eller ett problem på individnivå då det utifrån Jeffners reslutat visar att det viktigaste är att de manliga könsnormerna lyfts fram och förändras oberoende varifrån de verkar.

Vilken typ av rättvisa ska råda i framtiden : Om rättvisa, målkonflikter och demokratiska processerinför FN:s nya hållbara utvecklingsmål

Hösten 2015 väntas FN:s medlemsstater fatta beslut om millenniemålens efterföljare:Sustainable Development Goals; SDG. Uppsatsen syftar till att ge svar på frågan omvilka olika typer av rättvisa som dessa nya föreslagna hållbara utvecklingsmål, SDG,ger uttryck för. Utöver detta tas frågan om risken för eventuella målkonflikter upp,liksom på vilket sätt processerna som föregått besluten om målen ger uttryck förvärderingar knutna till demokratiskt beslutsfattande. Uppsatsen utgår från rättvisasom etiskt begrepp och analysen bygger på teorier från John Rawls, MarthaNussbaum och Seyla Benhabib. Genom närläsning och argumentationsanalys nåsföljande slutsatser: det råder flera olika typer av rättvisa inom SDG, de olika typernaav rättvisa bidrar till risken för målkonflikter samt att processerna som föregått målenger uttryck för värderingar knutna till demokratiskt beslutsfattande. Trots dessavärderingar föreligger risk för svårigheter med förankring, implementering ochgovernance av de framtida SDG. Den etiktradition som dominerade inom denuvarande millenniemålen, var den traditionella antropocentrismen. Etiken för hållbarutveckling har fått betydligt större utrymme i SDG.

Modern dance, domestic life and civil society

In her book The Reluctant Modernism of Hannah Arendt (2000) Seyla Benhabib uses the concept of an ‘alternative genealogy of modernity’ to help her both to understand Arendt’s political philosophy and to rethink the potential for civil society to become a progressive political force at the beginning of the twenty first century. The idea of an alternative genealogy of modernity refers to a heterogeneity of social and political forms, spaces and acts that might be used to remap and redefine a modernity whose dominant topology has been shaped by the binary division between so-called public and private spheres. Alternative modernities have already been elaborated and explored from a range of different perspectives including feminist and postcolonial ones: for example, in Rita Felski’s Gender of Modernity (1995) and Dipesh Chakrabarty’s Provincialising Europe (2000). In this paper I want to elaborate upon the idea of an alternative genealogy of modernity from my perspective as a dancer. Thinking through the sociality of art and, more specifically, of some historical dance-making practices can make visible alternative spaces and processes of the (potentially) political. In the West, the modes of art-making form part of an as yet not fully explored arena of the social and of social practices. Modernist and Romantic ideologies have tended to preclude attention to the specific sociabilities of art-making. On the one hand Modernist ideology and art discourses have promoted the idea of an art work’s ‘autonomy’: its radical separation from the social relationships, the bodies and the conditions of its making. On the other hand Romantic ideology, still pervasive in popular conceptions of art practices, construes creation as interiority and individualistic expression. Socialist feminist and Marxist discussions of art have emphasized the social conditions of art-making but these have tended to be concerned with the social inequalities instituted within the public/private split rather than seeking to destabilize that division itself by posing questions of differences within the social. In my discussion below I draw on aspects of early modern dance practice and creation in taking up Benhabib’s concern to mobilise an alternative genealogy of modernity towards a renewal and reactivation of civic life. This project involves unsettling clear distinctions between the so-called ‘public’ and ‘private’ but, at the same time, as Benhabib cautions ‘the binarity of public and private spheres must be reconstructed and not merely rejected’. (2000:2006)

El enfoque de la doble vía en la democracia deliberativa

En la siguiente comunicación analizaré ciertos alcances favorables que se advierten en el modelo de democracia deliberativa propuesto por Seyla Benhabib (2006) si se toman en consideración ciertas críticas que suelen acusarse a modelos deliberativos de la democracia. Allí, la filósofa presenta un modelo de razón pública que brinda elementos teóricos oportunos para enfrentarnos a discusiones ríspidas que suelen conducir a los diversos sectores de la sociedad a callejones sin salida. Veremos cómo particularmente estos elementos pueden pensarse a propósito del caso de la investigación en embriones humanos. Al hacernos la pregunta rawlsiana acerca de cómo es posible que convivan cooperativamente ciudadanos con distintas doctrinas comprehensivas, entendemos necesario emprender la empresa que busque un modelo deliberativo en el que se establezca algún "rango de razonabilidad" sobre las demandas y el tipo de razones al que pueden apelar las cosmovisiones antagónicas que se involucran en la discusión