Submitted by Carlos Henrique dos Santos Ruiz (caique_ruiz2006@yahoo.com.br) on 2018-09-20T17:47:12Z No. of bitstreams: 1 A Revolta que Não Houve - Versão Final.pdf: 1046797 bytes, checksum: 3748577315949e81b1766ac96499561b (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Satie Tagara (satie@marilia.unesp.br) on 2018-09-20T18:33:59Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 ruiz_chs_me_mar.pdf: 1046797 bytes, checksum: 3748577315949e81b1766ac96499561b (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-09-20T18:33:59Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ruiz_chs_me_mar.pdf: 1046797 bytes, checksum: 3748577315949e81b1766ac96499561b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-08-28 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) / Em 1º de abril de 1964, é derrubado o presidente constitucional da república João Goulart, consolidando o Golpe Civil-Militar, depois de uma Crise de Hegemonia. No entanto, o novo período não foi de tranquilidade política, havendo tanto contestações e tentativas de revolta por grupos de oposição quanto disputas entre os grupos políticos no poder, que ficou polarizado entre os “moderados” e os “duros” para definir qual seria o projeto hegemônico dirigiria o Bloco Histórico. De início, muitos participantes e apoiadores do golpe acreditavam que os militares logo devolveriam o poder aos civis. Mas a prorrogação do mandato do General Castelo Branco e a consequente cassação de expoentes históricos civis que apoiaram o golpe como Juscelino Kubitschek, outras lideranças começaram a perceber que um grupo dos militares procurava se hegemonizar no poder e estava conquistando espaço, com projeto político próprio. O Governador de São Paulo Adhemar de Barros entendeu que seria o próximo político a ser cassado. Face à impopularidade do regime devido à crise econômica, ele se alia a vários grupos políticos descontentes distintos, entre os quais a esquerda nacionalista e ligada ao PCB, e a militares descontentes, como o General Amaury Kruel, entre outros, articulando-se com ele à frente de um contragolpe. No entanto, a revolta não aconteceu, e Adhemar de Barros teve o mandato de governador cassado e os direitos políticos suspensos por dez anos. O objetivo deste trabalho é fazer uma retomada histórica da tentativa de revolta, e ao mesmo tempo uma análise política, tendo como referencial o conceito de Hegemonia e Crise de Hegemonia em Gramsci. Com isso, a pesquisa se propõe a responder: O que foi a Revolta? Quem participou dela? Qual o seu poderio militar? Quais seus objetivos políticos? Teve ramificações em outros estados? Por que ela não ocorreu? Para realizar isso, será discutido na Introdução o referencial teórico e a principal liderança da conspiração Adhemar de Barros. No Capítulo 1, será retomado historicamente o governo João Goulart, tendo como base o conceito de Crise de Hegemonia. No Capítulo 2, será retomado o governo Castelo Branco, tendo como enfoque a disputa hegemônica entre “moderados” e “duros”, além de retomar outras contestações do período. E no Capítulo 3, será discutido e analisado “A Revolta que Não Houve”, tendo como base o referencial teórico. Por fim, nas Considerações Finais, será discutido o resultado obtido na pesquisa. / On April 1st, 1964, the constitutional president of the republic João Goulart was overthrow, consolidating the Civil-Military Coup, after a Hegemony Crisis. However, the period was not a political one, and there were both contestations and attempts of riots by opposition groups and disputes between political groups in power, which became polarized between "moderados" (the "moderates") and "duros" (the "brash") to define the hegemonic project that would direct the Historical Bloc. Initially, many participants and supporters of the coup believed that the military would soon return the power to civilians. But the extension of the mandate of General Castelo Branco and the consequent annulment of historical civilian exponents who supported the coup as Juscelino Kubitschek, other leaders began to realize that a group of the military sought to hegemonize in power and was gaining space with its own political project. The Governor of the state of São Paulo, Adhemar de Barros, realized that he would be the next politician to be annulled. Faced with the unpopularity of the government due to the economic crisis, Barros joins several distinct disaffected political groups, including the nationalist and PCB-bound left wing, and disgruntled military personnel like General Amaury Kruel, among others, articulating with him the leadership of a counter-coup. However, the uprising did not happen, and Adhemar de Barros had his governor office annulled, and the political rights suspended for ten years. Thus, the present work is intended to draw both a historical recovering of the attempt of riot and a political analysis, taking as reference the concept of Hegemony and Crisis of Hegemony by Gramsci. The research, then, proposes to answer: What was this uprising? Who were the participants? Does it have military power? What are their political goals? Were there ramifications in other states? Why did not it happen? In order to accomplish it, the theoretical framework and the main leadership of the Adhemar de Barros conspiracy will be discussed in the Introduction. In Chapter 1, João Goulart's government is taken up historically, based on the concept of Crisis of Hegemony. In Chapter 2, the Castelo Branco's government is resumed, focusing on the hegemonic dispute between "moderados" and "duros", as well as resuming other contestations of the period. And in Chapter 3, "The Uprising that was Not" is discussed and analyzed, based on the theoretical framework by Gramsci. Finally, in the Final Considerations, the results obtained in the present research are discussed.

In the course of time, the Egyptian army has developed a complicated network of economic interests as a privileged establishment, and independent from civilian oversight or political surveillance. This dissertation argues that; the well-established and long lasting independent economic interests may turn the military establishment to an independent stakeholder and closed, conservative group within the society seeks to preserve its own privileges by controlling over the political power and resist any external oversight including the democratic reforms that may create a threat to these privileges. Such military establishment is a direct threat to any democratic transition. In this case, the armies securitize the political sphere raising the democratic reforms as foreign conspiracy and an existential threat to its privileges and raise the nationalism and xenophobic rhetoric as it needs to create a political justification for their security practices that aim to crush the opposition and secure the political power. I suppose that the Egyptian case shows causal relations between the economic interests of the military establishment and the nationalism as a dominant ideology. Such military is leaning to not only control the political power, but it aims to militarize the societal values and control over the...

La thèse étudie les répercussions de l’unification italienne sur le catholicisme français de 1856 à 1871. Alors que les catholiques avaient été jusque-là un des piliers du régime impérial, l’appui donné par Napoléon III au mouvement national italien mit un terme à cette situation. Parce qu’ils remettaient en cause le pouvoir temporel du pape, les événements italiens donnèrent lieu à une vaste mobilisation des fidèles. Tandis que cette mobilisation a longtemps été analysée par les historiens comme un mouvement ayant surtout impliqué le clergé et les notables légitimistes, ce travail montre qu’il s’agit en réalité d’un mouvement de masse. La thèse met en évidence les conséquences d’une telle mobilisation dans le domaine politique et dans le domaine religieux. Elle montre l’assimilation par les catholiques des formes classiques de la lutte politique moderne, utilisées à gauche comme à droite, et l’élaboration de moyens d’action plus originaux, fondés sur la politisation de la parole et de la pratique religieuses. Elle replace la mobilisation dans le cadre de la stratégie diplomatique du Saint-Siège, visant à s’appuyer sur les fidèles, en analysant les engagements dans l’armée pontificale et la mobilisation financière des catholiques. Enfin, l’étude met en évidence l’influence de la question romaine sur plusieurs mutations touchant le catholicisme depuis le début du siècle, qu’il s’agisse du mouvement vers Rome, de l’affirmation du catholicisme intransigeant ou de la place nouvelle des laïcs au sein de l’Église. C’est, en somme, une voie de modernisation alternative, construite en opposition aux principes de la modernité libérale, que cette étude entend mettre en évidence. / This dissertation examines the impacts of Italian unification on French Catholicism from 1856 to 1871. Whilst Catholics had until then been one of the imperial regime pillars, the support given by Napoleon III to the Italian national movement put an end to this situation. Because they were challenging the Pope's temporal power, the Italian events gave rise to a vast mobilisation of the faithful. Whilst this mobilisation has long been analysed by historians as a movement that mainly involved the clergy and the legitimist notables, this work shows it was actually a mass movement. This dissertation highlights the consequences of such involvement in political as well as religious matters. It shows the assimilation by Catholics of the classical means of modern political fight, used by the left as well as the right wing, and the elaboration of more original means, based on the politicisation of religious speech and practice. It replaces the mobilisation in the context of the Holy See’s diplomatic strategy, aimed at relying on the faithful. To do so, the dissertation analyses the enlistments in the pontifical army and the financial support provided by Catholics. Finally, the study shows the influence of the Roman question on several changes affecting Catholicism since the beginning of the century: the movement towards Rome, the affirmation of uncompromising Catholicism as well as the new status of the laity in the Church. It is, in short, a way of alternative modernisation, built in opposition to the principles of liberal modernity, that this study intends to bring to light.

In this thesis I compare the views of Joseph de Maistre and Fyodor Dostoyevsky with regard to the relation between modernity and the theologico-political problem. I integrate this comparison within the general context of the reflection concerning modernity and the theologico-political problem, as well as within the context of two Christian theological traditions, Catholic and Orthodox, on the basis of which the two authors develop their religious and political thought. In particular, I analyze the views of the two authors with regard to the origins and the defining traits of modernity. Likewise, I present their opinions concerning the consequences which are inherent in the modern project. Viewing modernity first and foremost as an attempt to build a secular world that would define itself by its opposition to what both authors regard as authentic Christianity, Maistre and Dostoyevsky emphasize the fact that, having theological origins that mark the totality of its becoming, modernity should be understood on the basis of a theologico-political reflection. Associating the modern ambition to build a secular world with the fate of the biblical Tower of Babel, both authors adopt a prophetic posture, announcing the collapse of the modern project as well as the ultimate eschatological resolution of the modern crisis. Yet, the two authors are differentiated by their interpretations of the relation between modernity and the theologico-political problem, identifying differently the theological origins of the modern crisis. In this sense, while according to Maistre modernity originates in the Protestant Reformation, for Dostoyevsky, modernity’s origins must be located in the transformations of Western Christianity that have finally lead to the latter’s separation from Eastern Orthodoxy. These differences of interpretation lead to the articulation of two different responses to the modern crisis, which are rooted in two different Christian theological traditions. Consequently, if in reaction to the modern crisis Maistre affirms the Catholic principle of authority, whose highest expression is the concept of papal infallibility, Dostoyevsky opposes to this crisis the Orthodox principle of brotherhood in Christ. The critique of modernity culminates in the thought of the two authors with an approach of the complex and troubling problem of theodicy, which, Maistre and Dostoyevsky believe, stands at the origin of the modern opposition to Christianity and its traditional institutions.

In this thesis I compare the views of Joseph de Maistre and Fyodor Dostoyevsky with regard to the relation between modernity and the theologico-political problem. I integrate this comparison within the general context of the reflection concerning modernity and the theologico-political problem, as well as within the context of two Christian theological traditions, Catholic and Orthodox, on the basis of which the two authors develop their religious and political thought. In particular, I analyze the views of the two authors with regard to the origins and the defining traits of modernity. Likewise, I present their opinions concerning the consequences which are inherent in the modern project. Viewing modernity first and foremost as an attempt to build a secular world that would define itself by its opposition to what both authors regard as authentic Christianity, Maistre and Dostoyevsky emphasize the fact that, having theological origins that mark the totality of its becoming, modernity should be understood on the basis of a theologico-political reflection. Associating the modern ambition to build a secular world with the fate of the biblical Tower of Babel, both authors adopt a prophetic posture, announcing the collapse of the modern project as well as the ultimate eschatological resolution of the modern crisis. Yet, the two authors are differentiated by their interpretations of the relation between modernity and the theologico-political problem, identifying differently the theological origins of the modern crisis. In this sense, while according to Maistre modernity originates in the Protestant Reformation, for Dostoyevsky, modernity’s origins must be located in the transformations of Western Christianity that have finally lead to the latter’s separation from Eastern Orthodoxy. These differences of interpretation lead to the articulation of two different responses to the modern crisis, which are rooted in two different Christian theological traditions. Consequently, if in reaction to the modern crisis Maistre affirms the Catholic principle of authority, whose highest expression is the concept of papal infallibility, Dostoyevsky opposes to this crisis the Orthodox principle of brotherhood in Christ. The critique of modernity culminates in the thought of the two authors with an approach of the complex and troubling problem of theodicy, which, Maistre and Dostoyevsky believe, stands at the origin of the modern opposition to Christianity and its traditional institutions.

On retient généralement de Louis de Bonald (1754-1840) la paternité d’une doctrine contre-révolutionnaire, comme son rôle de chef spirituel des ultras sous la Restauration. Une relecture de l’œuvre du philosophe, confrontée à des sources moins étudiées (articles de presse, opuscules, discours parlementaires, correspondance), mais surtout complétée par un matériau inédit (dont des extraits sont produits en annexes) a permis une approche transversale de la vie et de la carrière de cet homme politique au sens le plus contemporain du terme : de la fin du règne de Louis XV à celui de Louis-Philippe, ce métaphysicien à la théorie globalisante (on a pu le considérer comme le père de la sociologie) a sans cesse mobilisé cette dernière pour agir sur le réel historique, tout en l’enrichissant, voire la redéfinissant progressivement. Induisant une méthode pluridisciplinaire et s’inscrivant dans une chronologie vaste, ce travail a tenté de déconstruire l’image stéréotypée d’un penseur figé dans la nostalgie d’un Ancien Régime dont il aurait souhaité le retour, et dont la postérité se cantonnerait aux divers courants conservateurs ultérieurs. Personnage de son temps, s’inscrivant pleinement dans le propos régénérateur de l’époque post révolutionnaire, Bonald se présente au contraire sous une facette inattendue, celle d’une incontestable modernité : de l’âge romantique à l’âge industriel, les questions qu’il pose à son temps, et, partant, au nôtre, sont bien souvent terriblement actuelles. Quant à ses réponses, elles nous ont conduit à suggérer des pistes d’interprétation nouvelles autour de concepts tels que ceux de contre-utopie ou encore de contre-subversion. Bonald, en somme, est tout autant moderne dans son rapport à son siècle que dans sa dimension atemporelle, qu’on pourrait qualifier d’intempestive. / For most readers, of his time and until now, Louis de Bonald (1754-1840) was the father of a counter-Revolutionary doctrine, acting as a spiritual leader of the Ultras under the Restoration. A closer reading of the philosopher’s work, confronted with less-studied sources (articles published in the press, monographs, parliamentary speeches, correspondence) and completed by some unpublished material (extracts of which are published in our appendix) opens up a more transversal approach to the life and career of this politician, in the most contemporary sense of the word: from the end of Louis XV’s reign to the beginning of Louis-Philippe’s, Bonald, who is considered to be a forerunner of sociology, unceasingly mobilized his all-embracing theory of metaphysics to impact real history in the making, bringing enrichment and, gradually, even redefining it. Drawing on a multidisciplinary method, and taking into account a broad chronology, we have endeavored to deconstruct the stereotype of a thinker considered to be frozen in time, yearning for the return of the Ancien Régime, whose thinking put him on the path of an ultra-conservative heritage. A figure of his time, participating to the full in the post-Revolutionary discourse on regeneration, Bonald, unexpectedly and undoubtedly, reveals the face of a Modern. From the Age of the Romantics to the Industrial Age, the challenges which he defined in his time, are still incredibly relevant to ours. As for his answers, they lead us to put forward new interpretations of concepts such as counter-utopia or counter-subversion. Overall, Bonald is just as pertinent for his contemporaries as for our century and beyond. His thinking could be construed as timeless in nature.