Den insamlade empirin syftar till att besvara studiens frågeställningar gällande hur skolkuratorerna i denna studie påverkas av resursbrister inom skolan, samt vilken hjälp och stöd de får när de ställs inför utmaningar i arbetet. För att besvara dessa frågor har fyra verksamma skolkuratorer under intervjuer berättat om sina olika upplevelser inom yrkesrollen. Empirin har strukturerats med hjälp av innehållsanalys och har därefter tolkats och analyserats utifrån tidigare forskning och ett neo-liberalistiskt perspektiv. Det teoretiska perspektivet har tillämpats för att empirin ska kunna förstås i samband med hur samhället påverkar den individuella skolkuratorn. Studiens resultat visar att de rådande resursbristerna för skolkuratorerna får konsekvenser både gällande yrkesutövandet och den egna hälsan. Slutsatsen av resultatet är att samhällets ekonomiska prioriteringar medför en risk för att elever inte kan ges bästa möjliga hjälp och att kuratorerna vid oförbättrade förutsättningar i arbetet riskerar utbrändhet. / <p>2018-06-05</p>

This work aims to use Masaryk's thoughts to analyse, summarise and interpret his philosophy of history. The introduction is followed by a chapter on the peculiarities of Masaryk's expressions. The third chapter looks at the perspective of eternity. This is Masaryk's yardstick for assessing history and its meaning. The term 'humanity' is also explained here. He bases his view on history and historiography on it, as right from the perspective of eternity. The chapter's conclusion analyses Josef Pekář's incorrect view on it and its opposite liberalism as understood by Masaryk. As demonstrated, Josef Kaizl and Kamil Krofta made a similar mistake, which had a practical impact in the escalation of the so-called conflict over the meaning of Czech history, or even directly in its origins. Masaryk's liberalism is subsequently given a separate chapter. This contains, amongst other things, practical examples of expressions of the opposite of humanity in history. The fifth chapter explains why it was humanity which Masaryk took as the basis of his philosophy of history. The sixth chapter explains how an ageing professor who had preached humanity his whole life could have led a war and even strived to ensure that a peace would not be concluded which would go against his political objectives. His relativisation of humanity wasn't sudden however, and didn't go against his pre-war values system, nor against his method of looking at history. As demonstrated, it was already in existence when Ceská otázka was written, which initiated the mentioned conflict.

Most histories of the New Left emphasize that some variant of Marxism ultimately influenced activists in their pursuit of social change. Through careful examination of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), I argue that New Left thought was not always anti-liberal. Founding SDS members hardly rejected liberal political theory during the early years of the movement (1960-1963). New Left thought was profoundly indebted to John Dewey's political and philosophical method. Deweyan liberalism suggested theory should be directly applicable in the world of social action and truth should always be regarded as contingent. The connection between Dewey and SDS becomes apparent when one considers the role of Arnold S. Kaufman in the movement. Kaufman, a University of Michigan philosopher, applied Dewey's political and philosophical method in his work as an activist and academic. He coined the term "participatory democracy" for the New Left. Consequently, this key New Left concept was itself grounded in Dewey's philosophy.

The main purpose of this study is to understand the historicity of the dynamics of socio-economic changes and the characteristics of social and political mobilization in the case of progressive activists' ongoing search for new strategies of progressive urban community politics in Seoul, South Korea, after the historical conjuncture of democratization and neo-liberal globalization. This study is conducted through participant observation, interviews, and post-fieldwork historical research. By adopting the concept of "multiple-layeredness" as the underlying perspective, this study aims to capture the complexity and hybridity of past and recent socio-economic transformations. The progressive community activists are products of historically specific circumstances of state repression and radical social movements in the 1980s and the 1990s, and the influences of their past activist experiences are visible in their community activism. Historically, the state has been implicated in popular mobilizations for the national goals of economic development and democratization, which resulted in two-party domination in local politics. Under this unfavorable political condition, the community activists seek to acquire their places in public institutions through local elections and to organize grassroots resistance against local "growth machines" by mobilizing various social ties.

This thesis addresses the following question: do proponents and opponents in the linguistic disputes in Catalonia and Flanders prioritise individual or group-oriented rights? The dispute in Catalonia is about the use of languages in the Catalan education system, while the dispute in Flanders is about the linguistic regime in certain municipalities around Brussels. Crucially, both are made of competing normative-laden political arguments. Drawing on interviews and document analysis, the thesis situates the conflicting political arguments within the scholarship on the compatibility between liberalism and nationalism. The central argument of the thesis is that the Catalan and Flemish linguistic disputes occur within liberal nationalism. Proponents in Catalonia and Flanders argue in a form of liberal nationalism that is more nationalist than liberal, although the nationalist dimension is more explicit in Catalonia; opponents in Flanders combine liberal nationalism with classical liberalism; and opponents in Catalonia argue in a form of classical liberalism that relies on liberal nationalist elements. In short, the four positions in the two debates participate in different forms and to different degrees in liberal nationalism. The findings suggest that nationalism is an important factor in making sense of the paradox that the normative consensus on political liberalism does not translate into political consensus in these specific cases. It is hoped that the findings of this thesis will make two main contributions. The first is an explanatory contribution to improve the understanding of the Catalan and Flemish linguistic disputes: the disputes are not between liberals and nationalists, but between liberal nationalists. The second is a theory-building contribution to refine the theoretical debate about individual and group-specific rights: liberal nationalist scholars run the risk of being unable to account for the national attachments many people experience in ‘the real world’ if, in their efforts to build acceptable liberal theories, they circumscribe their defence of national membership to its instrumental role for individual autonomy. In addition, their conceptualisation of nations as bounded and homogeneous seems to be built upon flimsy empirical grounds.

Esta tese se insere no campo da teoria política normativa e tem como tema o estudo do debate sobre o conceito de liberdade. Nossa proposta consiste em analisar o conceito de liberdade como não interferência, de Isaiah Berlin; o conceito de liberdade como não dominação, de Philip Pettit; e a ideia de liberdade construtivista, de Nancy Hirschmann, para assim colocar esses conceitos em relação entre si. Objetivamos indicar a possibilidade de diálogo entre as diferentes correntes teóricas apontadas, como também propor uma leitura sobre o conceito de liberdade, para assim ampliarmos o nosso entendimento sobre o que é ser livre. Acreditamos que articular elementos das diferentes teorias pode enriquecer essa reflexão que pretende ser teórico-normativa, mas que, ao mesmo tempo, ambiciona refletir sobre as condições de liberdade para os diferentes sujeitos, tendo em vista as suas vidas nas sociedades contemporâneas e plurais. Nosso argumento é de que o exercício de compreender diferentes visões de liberdade de forma articulada é um caminho profícuo para abordarmos a indagação sobre quem é o sujeito livre. Desse modo, procuramos não apenas retomar criticamente os conceitos dos autores citados, mas também oferecer um possível diálogo entre as distintas concepções de liberdade tratadas nesta tese. Além disso, propomos usar o tema da opressão para articular elementos do pensamento dos três principais autores retomados aqui: Isaiah Berlin, Philip Pettit e Nancy Hirschmann. Defendemos que a ideia de não opressão pode ser uma abordagem teórica e política para discutirmos a liberdade. Tal chave de leitura nos permite pensar não só os espaços de liberdade, mas as diferentes experiências das pessoas. Assim, a liberdade considerada como não opressão relaciona a liberdade com a liberdade de escolha e, ao mesmo tempo, indica a necessidade da não dominação e atenção à construção do sujeito que escolhe. As escolhas se inserem em relações complexas, e a leitura da liberdade pela ideia da opressão é uma ferramenta normativa atenta a importantes aspectos políticos dessas escolhas / This thesis belongs to normative political theory field and has as its theme the study of the debate on the concept of freedom. Our proposal is to analyze Isaiahs Berlins concept of freedom as non-interference, Philip Pettits concept of freedom as nondomination, and Nancy Hirschmanns idea of constructivist freedom, and thereby to put these concepts in relation to each other. We intend not only to indicate the possibility of a dialogue between these different theoretical views, but also to propose a new way of developing the concept of freedom in order to expand our understanding of what is to be free. We believe that the articulation of elements taken from different theories can enrich this reflection that intends to be theoreticalnormative, but at the same time aspires to reflect about the conditions of freedom of the different subjects regarding their lives in plural and contemporary societies. Our argument is that the exercise of understanding different views of freedom in an articulated manner is a fruitful way to approach the question of who is the free subject. Thus, we not only approach critically the concepts of these authors, but we also offer a possible dialogue between the different conceptions of freedom treated in this thesis. In addition, we propose to use the theme of oppression to articulate elements of the thoughts of the three main authors discussed on this thesis: Isaiah Berlin, Philip Pettit and Nancy Hirschmann. We defend that the idea of non oppression, can be a theoretical and political approach to discuss freedom. This key of reading allow us to think not only spaces of freedom, but the different experiences of people. Thus, freedom considered as non oppression relates freedom to freedom of choice and, at the same time, indicates the necessity of non domination and attention to the construction of the choosing subject. The choices are embedded in complex relationships, and reading freedom by the idea of non oppression is a normative tool aware of important political aspects of these choices

Este trabalho discute a concepção sobre democracia presente na obra de Karl Popper, Joseph Schumpeter, Friedrich Haeyk e Ludwig Von Mises. A idéia principal da argumentação é que todos os autores realizam a defesa do que Popper nomeou como sociedade aberta, apesar das diferenças de abordagem teórica e de posição política existentes entre eles. No primeiro capítulo será apresentada a concepção de Popper sobre democracia destacando-se o conceito de sociedade aberta que foi cunhado pelo autor e as suas implicações nos temas que são considerados fundamentais pelo autor: a relação entre sociedade aberta e socialismo, as mudanças sociais na sociedade aberta, tradição versus revolução, burocracia e sociedade aberta. No segundo capítulo será apresentada a concepção de Schumpeter sobre democracia e será discutido quanto ela pode ser aproximada do conceito de sociedade aberta cunhado por Popper comparando-se as implicações das idéias de Schumpeter para os mesmos temas fundamentais discutidos no capítulo sobre Popper. No terceiro capítulo será seguida a mesma estrutura do segundo, só que agora em relação a Hayek e no quarto capítulo em relação a Mises. Na conclusão será avaliado o conceito de sociedade aberta agora sob a amplitude de ser um modo de reunir autores que, apesar de suas diferenças e certamente sem terem realizado qualquer orquestração maior de suas idéias políticas, podem ser tratados como formando quase que uma ?escola austríaca? de defesa de uma certa interpretação da democracia. / This thesis discusses the conception of democracy as presented in works by Karl Popper, Joseph Schumpeter, Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises. The main point of argumentation is based on the hypothesis that, despite the differences in both theoretical approaches and political preferences, all the authors support the concept of open society coined by Popper. In the first chapter, it will be introduced the Popper\'s conception of democracy focusing on his concept of open society as well as its implications for what he considers to be fundamental themes: the relation between open society and socialism, social changes in open society, tradition versus revolution, bureaucracy and open society. In the second chapter, the conception of democracy as discussed by Schumpeter will be introduced and it will be discussed how near it becomes to Popper\'s concept of open society when we compare the implications of the ideas of Schumpeter and Popper for the same fundamental themes discussed in the previous chapter. In the third and forth chapters, it will be followed the same structure of the second one for presenting the other two authors: Hayek and von Mises. In the conclusion, it will be evaluated the concept of open society taken in a wide sense as a mode of putting together authors that, in spite of their differences and considering that they did not promote any orchestration of their political ideas, can be treated as though they were part of an \"Austrian school\" of defense of a certain interpretation of democracy.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-12-17T14:20:30Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 DavideGS_TESE.pdf: 1773660 bytes, checksum: e340e95feee7025c3d4d28fda6b75a77 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013-02-12 / Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient?fico e Tecnol?gico / This work seeks to examine the historical relationships established between liberalism and democracy, questioning the apparent inseparability between the two ideologies. Methodologically construct a hypothetical dialogue with the Italian thinker Norberto Bobbio, one of the most important systematizers of liberal democracy, defending a theoretical and conceptual complementarity between the two ideologies. Following the Bobbio theoretical propose, it presents the political contributions of classical liberalism that the Italian thinker identify as logical and axiological antecedent of the modern democracy, naturalizing and universalizing the principles and ideals of classical liberalism. Going counter, it problematizes the political contributions of classical liberalism, emphasizing the tension between liberal theory and its practice, between the declared political principles and their translation into concrete historical reality, reserving rights and freedoms to property minority and severe restrictions to the majority. The critical analysis of classical liberalism allows questioning the privilege position that Bobbio reserves to the liberalism in the democracy history, to restore the important contribution of illiberal politics currents in the civil, political and social rights history, advocating the democracy with its social character, inclusive and participatory / Este trabalho busca examinar as rela??es que se estabeleceram, ao longo da hist?ria, entre o liberalismo e a democracia, problematizando a aparente indissociabilidade entre as duas ideologias. Metodologicamente constr?i-se um hipot?tico di?logo com o pensador italiano Norberto Bobbio, um dos mais importantes sistematizadores do regime democr?tico liberal e defensor da complementariedade te?rico-conceitual entre estas duas correntes de pensamento. Acompanhando a proposta te?rica de Norberto Bobbio, apresentam-se as contribui??es pol?ticas do liberalismo cl?ssico que o pensador italiano entende como antecedentes l?gicos e axiol?gicos da democracia moderna, naturalizando e universalizando os princ?pios e ide?rios do liberalismo cl?ssico. Indo contracorrente, problematizam-se as contribui??es pol?ticas do liberalismo cl?ssico, ressaltando a tens?o existente entre a teoria e a pr?tica liberal, entre os princ?pios pol?ticos declarados e sua tradu??o na realidade hist?rica concreta, reservando direitos e liberdades para as minorias propriet?rias e severas restri??es para a grande maioria. A cr?tica ao liberalismo cl?ssico permite questionar o lugar de privil?gio reservado por Bobbio ao liberalismo na hist?ria da democracia, resgatando a importante contribui??o de correntes pol?ticas n?o liberais na hist?ria dos direitos civis, pol?ticos e sociais, defendendo a democracia, com seu car?ter social, includente e participativo

Aqui investigamos o conceito de liberdade individual na teoria de Benjamin Constant. Partimos da conferência intitulada De la Liberté des Anciens comparée à celle des Modernes, e verificamos que o contraste entre a liberdade individual dos modernos e a liberdade política dos antigos não exclui completamente da vida dos modernos a necessidade de participação política. Assim, recorremos, no segundo capítulo, a outros textos de Benjamin Constant, sobretudo aos Principes de Politique, para examinar os pressupostos da sua teoria política: o problema da soberania do povo, a construção da noção de representatividade política e a dupla autoridade da natureza e da história que fundamentam respectivamente as noções de liberdade e igualdade. No terceiro capítulo buscamos os desdobramentos do conceito de liberdade moderna, isto é, o que caracteriza o liberalismo de Constant e o diagnóstico que ele aponta sobre o indivíduo moderno. Por conseguinte, sustentamos que a peculiaridade do liberalismo de Constant é articular a liberdade civil do indivíduo e a liberdade política de participação. Mas, no grande romance seu que é Adolfo, Constant relaciona indivíduo e sociedade de uma maneira que tanto recorda sua defesa da liberdade dos modernos quanto mostra os limites desta. Nossa conclusão é portanto uma pergunta, que sustentamos estar presente no próprio Constant: qual o valor, quais as perspectivas dessa liberdade moderna? / Here we inquire the concept of individual liberty in Benjamin Constants theory. We started with the conference entitled De la Liberté des Anciens comparée à celle des Modernes, and verified that the contrast between individual liberty for the moderns and political liberty for the ancients doesnt prevent the moderns from having the necessity of political participation. Therefore, in the second chapter, other texts by Benjamin Constant are studied, mainly Principes de Politique, in order to scrutinize the background of his theory: the issue of the peoples sovereign, the creation of the idea of political representativeness, and the double authority of the nature and the history that are base for the concepts of liberty and equality, respectively. In the third chapter we analyze the implications of the concept of modern liberty, that is, what characterizes Constants liberalism and how he diagnosis the modern individual. By doing so, we affirm that what is peculiar about Constants liberalism is how he connects the civil liberty of the individual to the political liberty of participation. However, in his great novel Adolfo, Constant links individual and society in such a way that it recalls his defense of liberty in the moderns but also shows the limits of that. Our conclusion is, therefore, a question, that we affirm to be present in Constant: what value, what perspectives of this modern liberty?

Orientador: João Carlos Kfouri Quartim de Moraes / Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-21T10:08:18Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Fontes_MarciadosSantos_M.pdf: 1517715 bytes, checksum: e6f0628ee7c4c3c818c0e3fb4964b5ca (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012 / Resumo: A democracia como forma de ordenamento político tem se ampliado territorialmente cada vez mais. Um motivo que justifica o seu avanço é a articulação da garantia dos direitos individuais, de liberdade política, à exigência de igualdade social. Norberto Bobbio analisa a democracia moderna como um desenvolvimento natural do liberalismo, no sentido jurídico-institucional, relacionado às "regras do jogo". Mas essa democracia só se completa no socialismo, enquanto ideal de igualdade. Nesse sentido, Bobbio propõe o compromisso de um liberal-socialismo. Para avaliarmos a possibilidade de síntese entre os conceitos essencialmente opostos, analisaremos a proposta bobbiana, expondo seus fundamentos e equívocos. Pesquisaremos as origens históricas do Estado liberal e a passagem deste à democracia representativa moderna, cujo estabelecimento esteve condicionado às teorias jusnaturalistas que lhes serviram de pressupostos filosóficos. A distinção conceitual existente na Itália entre liberismo e liberalismo, onde este último possui apenas uma conotação ético-política forjada na reação ao regime fascista, e que está atrelado também a uma interpretação hegeliana do marxismo, pode amparar o equívoco que permitirá a proposta bobbiana ser pensada, já que torna irrelevante aquilo que impedirá de ser efetiva. A meta de Bobbio é a universalização da democracia. Ela é o ponto de chegada e sua progressão não se dá em direção aos ideais socialistas, como apontam os seus últimos escritos. Nestes, a democracia é reduzida a uma "definição mínima", que abre mão do caráter "substancial" que dizia respeito à busca pelo ideal igualitário exigido pelo socialismo. Levando em consideração que a democracia não paira acima das partes, além e aquém das forças ideológicas, tal regressão do filósofo representa, portanto, a tomada de posição pelo modelo liberal de democracia e, desse modo, a sua proposta não aponta, como se propõe, uma forma alternativa, não marxista, ao modelo burguês de democracia existente / Abstract: Democracy as a form of political planning has been increasingly expanded territorially. One reason that justifies your advancement is the articulation between the guarantee of individual rights, political freedom, and the requirement for social equality. Norberto Bobbio examines modern democracy as a natural development of liberalism in the institutional and legal sense, related to the "rules of the game." However, this democracy only is completed in socialism, as ideal of equality. Therefore, Bobbio proposes the appointment of a liberal-socialism. To evaluate the possibility of synthesis between essentially opposing concepts, the Bobbio's proposal will be analyze, exposing its foundations and misconceptions. We will investigate the historical origins of the liberal State, and the passage of this modern representative democracy, whose establishment was conditioned to the theories of jus naturalis (law of nature), that were their philosophical presuppositions. The conceptual distinction that exists in Italy between liberism and liberalism, where the latter has only an ethical-political connotation forged in reaction to the fascist regime, and is also coupled to a Hegelian interpretation of Marxism, can sustain the misconception that allows think about the Bobbio's propose. The purpose of Bobbio is the universalization of democracy. It is the point of arrival and its progression does not occur in the direction of socialist ideals, as shown by his later writings. In these, democracy is reduced to a "minimal definition" which gives up "substantial" character with regard to the search required by the egalitarian ideal of socialism. Thinking that democracy does not hang up parties, further and beneath of ideological forces, the philosopher's regression is, therefore, the position taken by the liberal model of democracy and, thus, his proposal does not indicate, as proposed, an alternative, non-Marxist, to bourgeois model of the existing democracy / Mestrado / Filosofia / Mestre em Filosofia