O debate sobre redistribuição e reconhecimento tem como principais referências os trabalhos de Nancy Fraser e Axel Honneth, bem como o livro Redistribuição ou Reconhecimento? Uma controvérsia político-filosófica, obra que reúne contribuições de ambos. Cada um destes autores atribui, contudo, um diferente significado a esses dois conceitos que são também mobilizados por eles de modos distintos. Com o objetivo de explorar esse debate no interior e a partir da controvérsia Fraser-Honneth, abordaremos a compreensão que os dois possuem sobre as relações entre redistribuição e reconhecimento, em seus diferentes níveis de análise. Tomando como fio condutor a pergunta acerca da possibilidade de que o conjunto de injustiças existentes seja compreendido a partir do conceito de reconhecimento, ou acerca da necessidade de recorrer para isso ao par conceitual redistribuição e reconhecimento, pretendemos mostrar que por mais importantes que sejam as questões relativas à base normativa de suas teorias, à importância e ao caráter que atribuem aos conflitos sociais a disputa entre o monismo proposto por Honneth e o dualismo defendido por Fraser tem em seu centro questões sobre teoria social, por meio das quais procuram compreender as relações entre a economia e a cultura e apresentar teorias do poder aptas a diagnosticar as injustiças ou patologias sociais existentes. Injustiças que, segundo eles, precisam ser analisadas também no interior das interações sociais, que estariam perpassadas por relações de poder. / The debate about redistribution and recognition has as its central theoretical references, Nancy Frasers and Axel Honneths work and, mainly, the book Redistribution or Recognition? A political-philosophical exchange, a work that gathers contributions from both of them. Each of these authors ascribes, though, a different meaning to those two concepts that are, besides, mobilised by them in distinguished ways. With the aim to explore this debate within and from Fraser-Honneth controversy, we seek to discuss the comprehension that both authors sustain regarding the relations between redistribution and recognition, in its different levels of analysis. Establishing as our guiding line the question concerning the possibility that the set of existing injustices be comprehended only through the concept of recognition, or if to do so is necessary to call upon the conceptual par redistribution and recognition, we aim to pinpoint that although questions regarding the normative basis of their theories and the importance or character they assign to the social conflicts might be of fundamental importance the dispute between the monism endorsed by Honneth and the dualism advocated by Fraser has its center the different social theories developed by those authors, through which they seek to understand the relations between culture and economy and to bring foreword theories of power that can diagnose the existent social pathologies or injustices. Injustices that, according to them, need to be properly analysed within social interactions, also pervaded by power relations.

O objetivo deste trabalho é analisar o projeto de Nancy Fraser de pacificar a chamada guerra de paradigmas na teoria feminista, ou seja, o confronto entre teorias feministas pós-modernas e modernas. Essa análise é feita a partir do debate entre Judith Butler, Seyla Benhabib e Nancy Fraser acerca dos problemas teóricos que emergem das exclusões no movimento feminista, ou seja, da dificuldade de o movimento representar as várias formas de viver a condição feminina, levando em conta as intersecções entre a identidade de gênero, racial, de classe, etc. A intenção de Nancy Fraser é combinar a concepção de sujeito moderno e pósmoderno a fim de somar a desconstrução do sujeito, ou seja, a desnaturalização da identidade feminina com as concepções de igualdade e autonomia que estão presentes no argumento de Benhabib. Essa discussão remete a três tensões conceituais: autonomia e contextualização do sujeito; identidade e reconhecimento da diferença e igualdade e pluralidade. Por fim, concluo que a conciliação entre modernidade e pós-modernidade é problemática porque a concepção de sujeito pós-moderno apresenta desafios teóricos profundos a uma autonomia suficientemente forte para justificar a crítica social. No entanto, isso não significa necessariamente ter de escolher entre poder e autonomia, entre sujeito abstrato e determinado pelo meio. Na concepção de self narrativo de Benhabib, que ela concebe sob a influência do modernismo relutante de Hannah Arendt, encontra-se um modelo de conciliação de poder e autonomia mais promissor para vencer a exclusão no feminismo sem abandonar a identidade coletiva no movimento feminsita. / The subject of this thesis is Nancy Frasers attempt to overcome the tension between post-modernism and modernism in the feminist political theory, known as the paradigm war. This attempt is analysed though her debate with Judith Butler and Seyla Benhabib about the theoretical consequences of dealing with the problem of exclusion within the feminist movement. Nancy Fraser intends to combine Judith Butlers conception of the subject with Benhabibs conception of equality. For her, this is the only way to integrate power and autonomy in feminist political theory. This discussion leads to three theoretical tensions: contextualization of the subject and autonomy; identity and recognition of difference, and equality and plurality. My conclusion is that this combination is not possible because the post modern subjet challenges any conception of autonomy that is strong enough to explain and motivate social criticsm. Nevertheless, in Benhabibs conception of self narrative, inspired in the reluctant modernism of Hannah Arendt, we can find a theoretical model that is more adequate to fight the exclusion in feminist movement without abandoning its colletive identity.

Submitted by JOSIANE SANTOS DE OLIVEIRA (josianeso) on 2017-11-30T15:12:17Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Sidnei da Silva Perfeito_.pdf: 1480498 bytes, checksum: be584b0dbad66bb993ebb9a645870f0d (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-11-30T15:12:17Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Sidnei da Silva Perfeito_.pdf: 1480498 bytes, checksum: be584b0dbad66bb993ebb9a645870f0d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-08-14 / Nenhuma / É notório que os conflitos por terras reclamadas por indígenas ainda persistem, mesmo depois do reconhecimento conferido pela Constituição Federal de 1988 e da paradigmática decisão sobre a demarcação da Terra Indígena (TI) Raposa Serra do Sol. A vasta normatização sobre o tema, tanto no âmbito global como local, não foi suficiente para que o Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) prolatasse decisão que reconhecesse a ancestralidade do direito à ocupação, e com isso colaborasse na pacificação do assunto. Portanto, a pergunta que se pretende responder contempla tal cenário contraditório: se houve efetivo reconhecimento formal, por que, apesar disso, os índios ainda reivindicam as terras que simbolizam sua cultura e sua razão de existir? A partir dessa indagação é que se lança um olhar perspectivado pelas teorias de Axel Honneth e de Nancy Fraser na busca de ideias que possam representar a superação do quadro de falta de efetividade dos direitos dos povos indígenas. De início, Honneth defendeu uma teoria monista de reconhecimento cujo fundamento reside na autorrealização, pois entende que as experiências de sofrimento e de exclusão formam o combustível capaz de desencadear lutas que repercutem nos movimentos sociais, e assim haveria a emancipação do indivíduo a ponto de resolver também os problemas de distribuição. Noutra direção, em debate com Honneth, Fraser alega que o reconhecimento por si só é incapaz de resolver todas as injustiças e que é preciso conjugar medidas aptas a promover a distribuição. A partir desses estudos, os doutrinadores concebem outras propostas que objetivam superar a invisibilidade, transpor a subordinação de status, entender a reificação como produto do esquecimento do reconhecimento antecedente e a importância dos contrapúblicos em relação às arenas oficiais de debate. Norteando-se por esse referencial teórico, empreendeu-se uma revisão da evolução do reconhecimento formal dos direitos dos indígenas e uma crítica ao modo como referidas normas foram recebidas na decisão da demarcação da TI Raposa Serra do Sol e outras decisões que igualmente não contribuíram para a pacificação dos conflitos. Ao final, tencionou-se mostrar que as teorias de Honneth e de Fraser - isoladamente ou aliadas - podem contribuir para a efetivação dos direitos territoriais já reconhecidos aos indígenas. / It is well-known the conflicts for land claimed by indigenous peoples still persist, even after the recognition of the lands granted by the Federal Constitution of 1988 and the paradigmatic decision about the demarcation of Raposa Serra do Sol Indigenous Land. The vast regulation concerning the theme, both at global and local level, was not enough for the Federal Supreme Court to pronounce a decision recognizing the ancestry of the right to occupation and, thereby, to collaborate to pacify the issue. The question to be answered has this contradictory scenario: if there was an effective formal recognition, why, despite this, do the Indians still claim the lands that symbolize their culture and their reason to exist? From this question, a look is cast, under the theories of Axel Honneth and Nancy Fraser, in the search for ideas that can represent the overcoming of the frame of effectiveness of indigenous peoples’ rights. At the beginning, Honneth defended a monistic recognition theory, based on self-realization, once he understands the experiences of suffering and exclusion are able to form the fuel that will commence struggles which have repercussion on social movements and, with this, would happen an individual emancipation able to solve distribution problems. In another direction, debating with Honneth, Fraser says recognition, by itself, is unable to solve all injustices and so it is necessary to combine measures capable of promoting distribution. From these studies, the authors conceive other proposals aimed at overcoming invisibility, subordination status, understanding reification as a product of forgetfulness of antecedent recognition, and the importance of counterpublics in relation to official debate arenas. Always guided by this theoretical reference, it was done a review of the evolution of formal indigenous rights recognition and a critique of the way these norms were received in the demarcation trial of Raposa Serra do Sol Indigenous Land and other decisions likewise did not contribute to pacify conflicts. At the end, it was attempted to demonstrate that Honneth and Fraser’s theories, isolated or allied, can contribute for the realization of territorial rights already recognized to indigenous.

Since the 1970s, historians of British Columbia representing various ideological schools and methodological approaches have debated the role of race in the provinces history. Many of the earlier works discussed whether race or class was the primary determinant in social relations while more recent works have argued that factors such as race, class, and gender combined in different ways and in different situations to inform group interactions. However, the application of these terms in describing aspects of the thoughts and actions of non-Western peoples can be problematic. This thesis attempts to approach the question of race and its role in British Columbias past from the perspective of the Indigenous population of the Lower Fraser River watershed from 1828 (the establishment of the first Hudsons Bay Company post on the Fraser River) to the 1920s, examining shifting notions of the way Aboriginal epistemologies have conceived of otherness through contact between Stó:lõ people and Euro-Canadian and -American, Hawaiian, Chinese, and Japanese immigrants. The main contention is that, contrary to the historiographys depictions of unified and static interactions with newcomers, Stó:lõ people held complex and dynamic notions of otherness when newcomers arrived with the fur trade, and that such concepts informed interactions with people from throughout the Pacific. Numerous factors informed the ways in which Stó:lõ people approached and engaged in relationships with newcomers, but the strongest ones originated in Stó:lõ cultural and historical understanding of others rather than in the racial ideas of Euro-Canadians. <p>Following a discussion of the historiography of race relations and Native-Newcomer interactions in British Columbia, this thesis examines relationships during the fur trade between Hawaiian men employed at Fort Langley and Kwantlen people; the ways in which Stó:lõ people grouped the miners who came to the Fraser Canyon in 1858; Stó:lõ peoples interactions with Chinese immigrants from the 1860s through the 1880s; and the ways in which the presence of Japanese and Chinese Canadians influenced how Stó:lõ leaders articulated their claims to rights and title in the first decades of the twentieth century. It concludes that Aboriginal relations with non-Europeans took a different path than relations with Europeans. Several factors contributed to the branching of paths, including pre-contact views of <i> outsiders</i>, kinship ties in the fur trade, economic competition, and the unsettled Indian Land Question. Moreover, the different relationships must be seen as affecting the other, making understanding the nature of Aboriginal associations with non-Europeans an important part of making sense of aspects of Aboriginal relations with Europeans.

This study integrates settlement and community archaeology in investigating pre-colonial Stó:lō-Coast Salish community organization between 2,550-100 years before present (cal B.P.). Archaeological housepits provide a basic unit of analysis and proxy for households through which community organization manifests in relationships of form and arrangement among housepit settlements in the lower Fraser River Watershed of southwestern British Columbia. This study focuses on spatial and temporal data from 11 housepit settlements (114 housepits) in the upriver portion of the broader study area (mainland Gulf of Georgia Region). These settlements were mapped and tested as part of the Fraser Valley Archaeology Project (2003-2006). The findings of this study suggest a trajectory of continuity and change in community organization among the Stó:lō-Coast Salish over the 2,500 years preceding European colonization. Shifts between heterarchical and hierarchical forms of social organization, and corporate to network modes of relations represent societal transformations that become expressed by about 550 cal B.P. Transformations of social structure and community organization are manifest as increasing variation in housepit sizes and settlement patterns, and the development of central arrangements in both intra- and inter-settlement patterns. In the Late Period (ca. 550-100 cal. B.P.), the largest and most complex settlements in the region, including the largest housepits, develop on islands and at central places or hubs in the region’s communication system along the Fraser River. These complex sets of household relations within and between settlements represent an expansive form of community organization. Tracing this progression provides insight into the process of change among Stó:lō pithouse communities. Societal change develops as a shift expressed first at a broad-based collective level between settlements, and then at a more discreet individual level between households. This process speaks to the development of communities formed within a complex political-economic system widely practiced throughout the region. This pattern survived the smallpox epidemic of the late 18th century and was maintained by the Stó:lō up to the Colonial Era. Administration of British assimilation policies (e.g., Indian Legislation) instituted after 1858 effectively disrupted but failed to completely replace deeply rooted expressions of Stó:lō community that developed during preceding millennia.

Since the 1970s, historians of British Columbia representing various ideological schools and methodological approaches have debated the role of race in the provinces history. Many of the earlier works discussed whether race or class was the primary determinant in social relations while more recent works have argued that factors such as race, class, and gender combined in different ways and in different situations to inform group interactions. However, the application of these terms in describing aspects of the thoughts and actions of non-Western peoples can be problematic. This thesis attempts to approach the question of race and its role in British Columbias past from the perspective of the Indigenous population of the Lower Fraser River watershed from 1828 (the establishment of the first Hudsons Bay Company post on the Fraser River) to the 1920s, examining shifting notions of the way Aboriginal epistemologies have conceived of otherness through contact between Stó:lõ people and Euro-Canadian and -American, Hawaiian, Chinese, and Japanese immigrants. The main contention is that, contrary to the historiographys depictions of unified and static interactions with newcomers, Stó:lõ people held complex and dynamic notions of otherness when newcomers arrived with the fur trade, and that such concepts informed interactions with people from throughout the Pacific. Numerous factors informed the ways in which Stó:lõ people approached and engaged in relationships with newcomers, but the strongest ones originated in Stó:lõ cultural and historical understanding of others rather than in the racial ideas of Euro-Canadians. <p>Following a discussion of the historiography of race relations and Native-Newcomer interactions in British Columbia, this thesis examines relationships during the fur trade between Hawaiian men employed at Fort Langley and Kwantlen people; the ways in which Stó:lõ people grouped the miners who came to the Fraser Canyon in 1858; Stó:lõ peoples interactions with Chinese immigrants from the 1860s through the 1880s; and the ways in which the presence of Japanese and Chinese Canadians influenced how Stó:lõ leaders articulated their claims to rights and title in the first decades of the twentieth century. It concludes that Aboriginal relations with non-Europeans took a different path than relations with Europeans. Several factors contributed to the branching of paths, including pre-contact views of <i> outsiders</i>, kinship ties in the fur trade, economic competition, and the unsettled Indian Land Question. Moreover, the different relationships must be seen as affecting the other, making understanding the nature of Aboriginal associations with non-Europeans an important part of making sense of aspects of Aboriginal relations with Europeans.

The Green Plan, Canada's six year environmental agenda, has now guided Canadian environmental policy for over a year and a half. In that time span, a large number of environmental initiatives have been announced under the Green Plan, and an even larger number are still promised. However, not every initiative contributes equally to preventing or abating pollution. The extent to which an initiative contributes directly to an improvement in environmental quality depends on the level of coercion of the policy instrument it employs. Initiatives which involve relatively coercive policy instruments, in particular regulatory action, are more likely to achieve their goal in the immediate future than initiatives which rely largely on persuasion such as guidelines and public education. The classification of the policy instruments in the Green Plan reveals a strong preference on the part of the federal government for non-coercive over coercive instruments. Only 13 per cent of the Green Plan initiatives involve regulatory action. The majority involve increasing capacity which means that the initiatives centre around research, studies, monitoring and plan development. The Fraser River Action Plan, a Green Plan initiative announced in June 1991, reflects the same federal preference for capacity increasing instruments as the larger Green Plan. Several variables help to explain this preference: constitutional constraints, pressure from other levels of government, opposition from industry, and environmental interest group pressure. Both the events leading up to the Green Plan and the implementation of the Fraser River Action Plan, suggest that the strongest motivating factor for the choice of policy instruments is the concern to avoid blame from the interests affected by a particular initiative. In practice, this means that the federal government is reluctant to make use of its regulatory authority to impose clean-up costs on the polluting industry. It also avoids to interfere with provincial jurisdiction over natural resources. In order to avoid blame from environmental groups and the public, who demand tighter pollution controls, the government relies on symbolic actions. Symbolic actions enable the government to show its concern but postpone pollution abatement to a later date. Federal reluctance to make use of its full constitutional authority in the area of environmental policy making combined with the large budget cuts the Green Plan has seen during its relatively short period of existence, belies the federal commitment to protecting the environment.

This study integrates settlement and community archaeology in investigating pre-colonial Stó:lō-Coast Salish community organization between 2,550-100 years before present (cal B.P.). Archaeological housepits provide a basic unit of analysis and proxy for households through which community organization manifests in relationships of form and arrangement among housepit settlements in the lower Fraser River Watershed of southwestern British Columbia. This study focuses on spatial and temporal data from 11 housepit settlements (114 housepits) in the upriver portion of the broader study area (mainland Gulf of Georgia Region). These settlements were mapped and tested as part of the Fraser Valley Archaeology Project (2003-2006). The findings of this study suggest a trajectory of continuity and change in community organization among the Stó:lō-Coast Salish over the 2,500 years preceding European colonization. Shifts between heterarchical and hierarchical forms of social organization, and corporate to network modes of relations represent societal transformations that become expressed by about 550 cal B.P. Transformations of social structure and community organization are manifest as increasing variation in housepit sizes and settlement patterns, and the development of central arrangements in both intra- and inter-settlement patterns. In the Late Period (ca. 550-100 cal. B.P.), the largest and most complex settlements in the region, including the largest housepits, develop on islands and at central places or hubs in the region’s communication system along the Fraser River. These complex sets of household relations within and between settlements represent an expansive form of community organization. Tracing this progression provides insight into the process of change among Stó:lō pithouse communities. Societal change develops as a shift expressed first at a broad-based collective level between settlements, and then at a more discreet individual level between households. This process speaks to the development of communities formed within a complex political-economic system widely practiced throughout the region. This pattern survived the smallpox epidemic of the late 18th century and was maintained by the Stó:lō up to the Colonial Era. Administration of British assimilation policies (e.g., Indian Legislation) instituted after 1858 effectively disrupted but failed to completely replace deeply rooted expressions of Stó:lō community that developed during preceding millennia.

O debate sobre redistribuição e reconhecimento tem como principais referências os trabalhos de Nancy Fraser e Axel Honneth, bem como o livro Redistribuição ou Reconhecimento? Uma controvérsia político-filosófica, obra que reúne contribuições de ambos. Cada um destes autores atribui, contudo, um diferente significado a esses dois conceitos que são também mobilizados por eles de modos distintos. Com o objetivo de explorar esse debate no interior e a partir da controvérsia Fraser-Honneth, abordaremos a compreensão que os dois possuem sobre as relações entre redistribuição e reconhecimento, em seus diferentes níveis de análise. Tomando como fio condutor a pergunta acerca da possibilidade de que o conjunto de injustiças existentes seja compreendido a partir do conceito de reconhecimento, ou acerca da necessidade de recorrer para isso ao par conceitual redistribuição e reconhecimento, pretendemos mostrar que por mais importantes que sejam as questões relativas à base normativa de suas teorias, à importância e ao caráter que atribuem aos conflitos sociais a disputa entre o monismo proposto por Honneth e o dualismo defendido por Fraser tem em seu centro questões sobre teoria social, por meio das quais procuram compreender as relações entre a economia e a cultura e apresentar teorias do poder aptas a diagnosticar as injustiças ou patologias sociais existentes. Injustiças que, segundo eles, precisam ser analisadas também no interior das interações sociais, que estariam perpassadas por relações de poder. / The debate about redistribution and recognition has as its central theoretical references, Nancy Frasers and Axel Honneths work and, mainly, the book Redistribution or Recognition? A political-philosophical exchange, a work that gathers contributions from both of them. Each of these authors ascribes, though, a different meaning to those two concepts that are, besides, mobilised by them in distinguished ways. With the aim to explore this debate within and from Fraser-Honneth controversy, we seek to discuss the comprehension that both authors sustain regarding the relations between redistribution and recognition, in its different levels of analysis. Establishing as our guiding line the question concerning the possibility that the set of existing injustices be comprehended only through the concept of recognition, or if to do so is necessary to call upon the conceptual par redistribution and recognition, we aim to pinpoint that although questions regarding the normative basis of their theories and the importance or character they assign to the social conflicts might be of fundamental importance the dispute between the monism endorsed by Honneth and the dualism advocated by Fraser has its center the different social theories developed by those authors, through which they seek to understand the relations between culture and economy and to bring foreword theories of power that can diagnose the existent social pathologies or injustices. Injustices that, according to them, need to be properly analysed within social interactions, also pervaded by power relations.

This study integrates settlement and community archaeology in investigating pre-colonial Stó:lō-Coast Salish community organization between 2,550-100 years before present (cal B.P.). Archaeological housepits provide a basic unit of analysis and proxy for households through which community organization manifests in relationships of form and arrangement among housepit settlements in the lower Fraser River Watershed of southwestern British Columbia. This study focuses on spatial and temporal data from 11 housepit settlements (114 housepits) in the upriver portion of the broader study area (mainland Gulf of Georgia Region). These settlements were mapped and tested as part of the Fraser Valley Archaeology Project (2003-2006). The findings of this study suggest a trajectory of continuity and change in community organization among the Stó:lō-Coast Salish over the 2,500 years preceding European colonization. Shifts between heterarchical and hierarchical forms of social organization, and corporate to network modes of relations represent societal transformations that become expressed by about 550 cal B.P. Transformations of social structure and community organization are manifest as increasing variation in housepit sizes and settlement patterns, and the development of central arrangements in both intra- and inter-settlement patterns. In the Late Period (ca. 550-100 cal. B.P.), the largest and most complex settlements in the region, including the largest housepits, develop on islands and at central places or hubs in the region’s communication system along the Fraser River. These complex sets of household relations within and between settlements represent an expansive form of community organization. Tracing this progression provides insight into the process of change among Stó:lō pithouse communities. Societal change develops as a shift expressed first at a broad-based collective level between settlements, and then at a more discreet individual level between households. This process speaks to the development of communities formed within a complex political-economic system widely practiced throughout the region. This pattern survived the smallpox epidemic of the late 18th century and was maintained by the Stó:lō up to the Colonial Era. Administration of British assimilation policies (e.g., Indian Legislation) instituted after 1858 effectively disrupted but failed to completely replace deeply rooted expressions of Stó:lō community that developed during preceding millennia. / Arts, Faculty of / Anthropology, Department of / Graduate