Made available in DSpace on 2016-08-29T14:12:06Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 tese_4770_.pdf: 859911 bytes, checksum: 17cb50074e843276cfa4052d8d86a352 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-06-25 / O objetivo central desta dissertação é realizar uma análise comparativa das obras de François Guizot e Alexis de Tocqueville. Este trabalho se insere, portanto, em um conjunto de estudos que, sobretudo a partir da década de 1980, procura avaliar a dívida intelectual do segundo para com o primeiro. Sabe-se que ambos viveram em uma época marcada pela instabilidade política e se dedicaram a discernir o sentido político e social da Revolução Francesa, procurando compreender as novas relações entre os indivíduos e o Estado. Inicialmente, será pesquisada a influência do conceito de civilização elaborado por Guizot no final da década de 1820 sobre a visão histórica de Tocqueville, particularmente sobre o que este chamou de revolução democrática. A análise deverá demonstrar que um e outro autor tinham uma avaliação fundamentalmente diferente dos efeitos das transformações sociais por que passara a França. Sustentando diferentes apreciações da sociedade em que viviam, julgaram de maneira diversa as relações dessa sociedade com o poder político. O segundo momento da pesquisa recairá, portanto, sobre o papel que reservaram aos cidadãos na construção da ordem política, uma vez que ambos rejeitavam a ideia de que a soberania pertencesse unicamente à realeza. De fato, evitando atribuir o poder político a qualquer indivíduo ou grupo social, evocaram alternadamente a soberania da razão ou do gênero humano e buscaram diferentes soluções para transformar o poder de direito em poder de fato. Todavia, nem um nem outro sistematizou suas reflexões sobre o assunto em uma grande obra de teoria política. Suas ideias encontram-se dispersas em seus livros de história e textos de intervenção política, de modo que a dimensão contextual é elemento obrigatório deste trabalho, que procura compreender as ambiguidades dos autores e as transformações em suas formulações conceituais, relacionando-as a problemas políticos específicos enfrentados por eles.

En 1831, l’aristocrate français Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) traverse l’Atlantique afin d’aller rencontrer l’avenir au coeur des États-Unis d’Amérique. Avant de s’embarquer pour cette aventure, il a déjà la certitude du caractère inévitable de l’égalisation des conditions. Bien que l’avènement de l’état social démocratique soit un «fait providentiel» aux yeux du jeune homme, il s’inquiète en constatant une certaine ambivalence quant à sa tournure politique. La république libérale n’est pas la conséquence politique nécessaire de l’état social démocratique; son contraire, le despotisme, doit aussi être sérieusement envisagé. L’Amérique devient donc une destination de choix afin d’y observer tout le potentiel démocratique, et livrer ensuite ses découvertes dans ce chef-d’oeuvre que constitue La Démocratie en Amérique (1835-1840). Ce «fait générateur» qu’est l’égalité des conditions, alors même qu’il ouvre un champ des possibles immense pour l’épanouissement humain, présente aussi un risque de déshumanisation. Afin de tirer le meilleur de la démocratie, l’homme doit éviter de sombrer dans l’apathie vis-à-vis la chose politique. Renoncer à ses devoirs de citoyen revient à abdiquer sa liberté, et donc tout espoir de grandeur. Tocqueville fournit dans son ouvrage un véritable éclaircissement de la démocratie dans ses tendances les plus secrètes, et il envisage certains contrepoids permettant de maintenir le fragile équilibre. Tocqueville se porte ainsi à la défense de la liberté et de la dignité humaines qu’il croit réellement menacées. L’état social démocratique constitue-t-il une terre fertile à la grandeur humaine? Quelles sont les conditions de possibilité du déploiement de cette grandeur? Et pour nous, presque deux siècles plus tard, les mots de Tocqueville ont-ils encore une certaine pertinence? À la lumière des réflexions de Tocqueville nourries par ses découvertes en sol américain, le présent mémoire essaie de montrer que démocratie et grandeur humaine ne sont pas incompatibles. / In 1831, the French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) sailed across the Atlantic Ocean to the heart of the United States of America in order to shed light upon the future of democracy. Before starting out on this adventure, he was already certain that social equality was inevitable. Even though, in his young eyes, the progression of the democratic social state was a “providential fact”, he became worried when he realized that there was a certain ambivalence concerning the political direction that the movement was taking. A democratic social state does not necessary lead to a liberal movement; its opposite, despotism, must seriously be taken into consideration. As such, America became his choice destination for observing all the democratic potential it had to offer, leading him to write his masterpiece Democracy in America (1835-1840), in which he shares his discoveries. Social equality opens an immense breadth of possibilities for human growth, but, at the same time, also presents a risk of dehumanization. In order to get the best out of democracy, humankind must avoid falling into apathy towards politics. Giving up one’s political responsibility is like abdicating one’s freedom and, as such, all hope for greatness. In his work, Tocqueville provides a true explanation of democracy, with all of its most secret orientations. He also provides measures that counterweight this nature, allowing for the fragile equilibrium to be maintained. In this manner, Tocqueville presents himself as the defender of human freedom and dignity, which he believes to be truly threatened. Does social equality allow for human greatness? If so, what conditions are required to deploy such greatness? Nearly two centuries later, are Tocqueville’s words still pertinent? In light of Tocqueville’s thoughts, which were fed by his discoveries on American soil, this dissertation attempts to demonstrate that democracy and human greatness are not incompatible.

According to Alexis de Tocqueville, humanity is entering a new age of political and social equality, a new epoch in which the human race has no historical example or experience. As a result, he holds humanity's future will be largely determined by the political and moral choices made in this transitional time. For Tocqueville, the new egalitarian era is a forgone conclusion, but for him, the pressing question is whether humanity will choose a future in which it enchains itself to new forms of tyranny, or, whether the human race can establish the political and moral institutions designed to assure human freedom and dignity. In Tocqueville's view, liberty or slavery are the two choices modern men and women have in front of them, and it is the intent of this dissertation to explore Tocqueville's warning in regard to the latter choice. Tocqueville warns us that modern democratic peoples must beware of the moral and political effects of a new type of political philosophy, a political theory he terms democratic pantheism. Democratic pantheism is a philosophic doctrine that treats egalitarianism as a "religion" in which all social and political striving is directed toward realizing a providentially ordained strict equality of conditions. To attain this end, modern humanity gives up its right to self-government to an all-powerful "representative" state that will unconsciously (and as a result, unjustly) force equality on unequal human beings. Because this philosophy informs the core "soul" of a pantheistic social state, the vast majority of individuals are blissfully unaware that their humanity is diminished and their freedom is lost. The effect is a political and intellectual torpor wherein democratic citizens fall prey to a deterministic and insipid existence; and any thoughts of true independence and freedom of action are eventually extinguished--all due to the unknowing acceptance of a hidden social and political philosophy.

Ce mémoire s'intéresse à ce qu'on appelle communément la crise des autorités traditionnelles. Notre thèse principale est que Tocqueville est un auteur privilégié pour aborder ce problème. L'intérêt d'étudier Tocqueville sous cet angle naît du peu d'études qui lui ont été accordées autant chez les commentateurs qui réfléchissent à cette question que chez les spécialistes de son œuvre. Tocqueville, vivant au carrefour de l'Ancien monde et du Nouveau, pose un regard original sur la transformation sociale qui secoue l'Occident depuis plusieurs siècles, la révolution démocratique. Dans le premier chapitre, nous regarderons les thèses générales de la réflexion tocquevilienne. Cela signifie avant tout la compréhension du passage de l'état social inégalitaire à l'état social égalitaire. Puis, nous regarderons la structure politique que préconise Tocqueville pour la nouvelle société, soit la démocratie politique. Dans le deuxième chapitre, nous nous intéresserons à toutes les facettes du problème de l'autorité. Premièrement, nous y analyserons la transformation fondamentale qui se fait par la révolution démocratique dans le rapport de l'individu et de la société à l'autorité. Les sections suivantes feront ressortir les problèmes consécutifs à ce changement : le développement de l'hédonisme et de l'individualisme, l'ouverture à l'esprit révolutionnaire et, enfin, la création d'une incertitude propre aux Modernes. La dernière section portera sur les nouvelles autorités démocratiques, celles devant être créées et celle qui naîtra d'elle-même. Le troisième chapitre s'intéressera au rapport qu'entretient la pensée même de Tocqueville à l'autorité en général.

When Alexis de Tocqueville observed the spread of modern democracy across France, England, and the United States, he saw that democracy would give rise to a new state of letters, and that this new state of letters would influence how democratic citizens and statesmen would understand the new political world. As he reflected on this new intellectual sphere, Tocqueville became concerned that democracy would foster changes in language and thought that would stifle concepts and ideas essential to the preservation of intellectual and political liberty. In an effort to direct, refine, and reshape political thought in democracy, Tocqueville undertook a critique of the democratic state of letters, assessing intellectual life and contributing his own ideas and concepts to help citizens and statesmen think more coherently about democratic politics. Here, I analyze Tocqueville's critique and offer an account of his effort to reshape democratic political thought. I show that through his analyses of the role of intellectuals in democratic regimes, the influence of modern science on democratic public life, the intellectual habits that democracy fosters, and the power of literary works for shaping democratic self-understanding, Tocqueville succeeds in reshaping democratic language and thought in a manner that contributes to the preservation of intellectual and political liberty within the modern democratic world.

No description available.

Can states formally recognize cultural diversity and, at the same time, preserve their political and social unity and provide the main public goods of modern citizenship? Is such conciliation feasible? Is it morally desirable? In the current context of unprecedented expression and politicization of cultural identities, especially in democratic countries, such questions are more and more crucial. To answer these questions, the present study considers the contribution of the modern federal tradition. Within this tradition, I analyze four federal responses to the unity-diversity dilemma. The first two---the Belgian and Canadian federations---are practical. Each embodies one of the two dominant contemporary models of federalism: classical liberal individualist, and multinational. I study the experience of each country over the past thirty years to compare the effects of the two models on citizenship. The potential of the modern federal tradition is further assessed through an examination of two theoretical and normative reflections, those of Tocqueville and Proudhon. / The central thesis is twofold. First, I contend that in a context of increasing cultural diversity, unity and diversity have an equal value and are both essential to citizenship. This is true both from a moral and from a practical point of view. Second, I argue that the dominant conceptions of federalism are unable to satisfactorily conciliate unity and diversity. Such task requires the development of what I call an intercultural federalism, one centered on the good of identity pluralization or complexitication. From a strictly practical point of view, only an intercultural federalism can prevent identity fragmentation and the political and social fragmentation which come with it. From a moral perspective, intercultural federalism promises not only to protect, but also to maximize the primary goods which are the most affected by identity fragmentation---political liberty and social solidarity---while also promoting individual liberty. Intercultural federalism rests on three principles which summarize the teachings of the modern federal tradition with regard to the establishment of just citizenship institutions in a context of diversity. Such institutions are just in that they protect and maximize the primary goods of citizenship for all citizens. The three principles are: (1) mutual recognition; (2) intercultural dialogue; (3) multi-varied asymmetrical institutionalization.

Thèse en cotutelle : Université Laval, Québec, Canada, Philosophiae Doctor (Ph. D.) et Institut Catholique de Toulouse, Toulouse, France, Docteur (Dr). / Cette présente étude vise à analyser la principale préoccupation de Tocqueville dans De la Démocratie en Amérique : Celle de la possibilité de l’existence d’une société égalitaire qui prend en compte les problèmes susceptibles de la miner. Nous mettons en avant les prérequis pour l’existence d’une société égalitaire et libérale dépassionnée. Ces prérequis se concentrent sur l’exercice de la liberté politique, la participation politique, la citoyenneté active, le rôle des associations et la nécessité du religieux. Comme nous le démontrons dans le développement de notre thèse, si la modernité démocratique autour de Tocqueville s’est focalisée sur l’exaltation du sujet, son objectif à lui c’est d’instruire l’avenir. Il cherche à prévenir les sociétés démocratiques des dangers que la passion de l’égalité fait naître. L’égalité a rapproché les hommes certes, mais elle a entrainé une atrophie de la liberté ainsi qu’une dévaluation du vivre ensemble démocratique. Nous réfléchissons donc sur la manière de concevoir les limites de l’égalité démocratique en tenant compte de la liberté. / The aim of this study is to analyse the main issue in Alexis de Tocqueville’s essay, De la Démocratie en Amérique. That is, the possibility to see arise an egalitarian society being able to deal with the issues that might affect it. We state that they are unbiased prerequisites that enable the existence of a liberal and an egalitarian society. Those prerequisites are as followed : (1) concentrated on the exercise of political freedom, (2) the political participation, (3) the active acting of citizenship, (4) the role of civil society through associations or organizations and (5) the religious neccesity. We argue that if democratic modernity around de Tocqueville was focused on elating the subject, his main purpose is to instruct the future. He is seeking to prevent democratic societies from the dangers that the passion of equality enables. So far, it is true that the notion of equality has helped human beings to be closer to each others, yet it has also triggered an atrophy of freedom, as well as a devaluation of the democratic togetherness (in the sense of living together in an era of democraty). We are therefore addressing in this thesis a way of conceiving the limitations of democratic equality in a context of freedom.

Le but de cette recherche doctorale est de mettre au jour une conception spécifique du libéralisme au XIXè siècle qui rendait possible la cohabitation des exigences libérales de respect de l’individu et de ses droits ainsi que des exigences nationales de vie en communauté et d’identité. Partant du principe que de nombreux auteurs ne considéraient pas que le concept de nationalité entrait en contradiction avec les valeurs libérales à cette époque, nous estimons qu’Alexis de Tocqueville, ainsi que John Stuart Mill, proposent la forme la plus cohérente et aboutie de réflexion en la matière, et ce à travers un libéralisme dit « d’esprit » que nous extrairons de leur pensée commune. En effet, alors qu’ils cherchent à contrecarrer les effets néfastes du matérialisme qui aurait comme principale conséquence d’abaisser l’âme des individus et de les priver de liberté, ils mettent au point une approche qui empêche la matérialisation ou la cristallisation complète des références proposées comme point de repère aux citoyens. / Doctorat en Sciences politiques et sociales / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-27T16:33:18Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 EHPS - Josefa Eliana Souza.pdf: 549498 bytes, checksum: 4943669ec240cca8aad854584b915d09 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2006-10-06 / Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico / The objective of this study is to understand the way Tavares Bastos dealt with Brazilian public education in the 60 s and in the beginning of the 70 s, in the XIX century, as for what he named the Brazilian public education program . It also tried to answer the following question: if and how did the author try to incorporate North-American models into the program of public education in Brazil? In order to perform such task, pamphlets the author/politician published between the years of 1861 and 1873 were examined. The analysis of such work allows identifying elements tha t are part of the program of public education aimed at by Tavares Bastos, and it emphasis that elements of the North- American models were used, mainly the one implemented by Horace Mann, and the ones presented by Aléxis Tocqueville, as an appropriate ama lgam to direct the Brazilian people towards the path of progress and civilization. By picking elements that constitute those models, Tavares Bastos built arguments in order to defend the idea of a free and universal school, mandatory education, co-education schools, and a teaching program dedicated mainly to knowledge based on practical principles that would provide the students with a kind of training that would be more adequate to the needs of workers from the fields of industry, commerce, and agriculture of that time. Therefore, the provinces should be equipped with schools whose mission would be preparing students to perform the tasks society demanded and to prepare them for democracy / Neste estudo a finalidade é compreender o modo como Tavares Bastos tratou a instrução pública brasileira, na década de 60 e início de 70 do século XIX, no que denominou de programa de instrução pública brasileira . Buscou-se também responder a seguinte questão: se e de que forma o autor procurou incorporar modelos ou referentes norteamericanos ao programa de instrução pública do Brasil? Na realização dessa tarefa foram examinados os panfletos que o autor/parlamentar publicou entre os anos de 1861 a 1873. A análise dessa produção permite identificar elementos que constituem o programa de instrução pública almejado por Tavares Bastos e afirmar que elementos de modelos norteamericanos foram mobilizados, sobretudo o implementado por Horace Mann e os apresentados por Aléxis Tocqueville, como um amálgama adequado para conduzir o povo brasileiro ao caminho do progresso e da civilização. Ao pinçar elementos que constituem esses modelos, Tavares Bastos produziu os argumentos para defender a escola gratuita e universal, o ensino obrigatório, escola mista, programa de ensino voltado, sobretudo, para o conhecimento baseado em princípios práticos e que possibilitassem ao aluno um tipo de formação mais adequada às necessidades do trabalhador da indústria, do comércio e da agricultura da época. Por isso, as províncias deveriam ser dotadas de escolas, cuja missão deveria ser preparar o aluno para exercer as tarefas que a sociedade exigia e preparar o caminho para a democracia