Orientador: Marcos Nobre / Tese (doutorado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciencias Humanas / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-11T01:47:03Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 BannwartJunior_ClodomiroJose_D.pdf: 4684104 bytes, checksum: cd6bd028eec3fb5ed152f2c17cbe2306 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008 / Resumo: O trabalho parte do pressuposto, afirmado por Habermas em Problemas de legitimação do Capitalismo Tardio, de que a teoria da evolução social deve servir de base para a formulação de uma teoria da sociedade. A vinculação dessas duas teorias no início da década de 1970 orienta-se pela colocação de duas outras importantes teorias: a teoria da ação comunicativa e a teoria da modernidade. Num primeiro momento, explora-se a construção da teoria da sociedade verificando-se como Habermas reformula os pressupostos da teoria crítica, inscritos numa base evolucionária com pretensões emancipatórias. Num segundo momento, discute-se a estruturação da teoria da evolução social nos textos da década de 1970, principalmente em Para a Reconstrução do Materialismo Histórico, enfatizando-se o problema da homologia entre ontogênese e filogênese e as tentativas de Habermas em equacionar indivíduo e sociedade por intermédio de três caminhos: a formação da identidade pós-convencional, a dimensão prático-moral e a capacidade de aprendizagem. Num terceiro momento, destaca-se a capacidade de aprendizagem como caminho que mantém aberta a possibilidade da relação ontofilogenética e única alternativa de que Habermas dispõe para manter em pé a sua teoria da evolução social na Teoria da Ação Comunicativa. Nesta obra, destaca-se, sobretudo, o deslocamento da psicologia do desenvolvimento para a incorporação de autores ligados à sociologia, principalmente Mead e Durkheim, visando-se à estabilidade da relação ontofilogenética enquanto ponto para a manutenção da teoria da evolução social e, conseqüentemente, da própria teoria social crítica de Habermas inscrita no paradigma da comunicação / Abstract: This work intends to discuss about the theory of social change. Habermas in Legitimationsprobleme im Spätkapitalismus analyses that the theory of social change should serve as a basis for the formulation of a society theory. The linkage of these two theories at the beginning of the 1970 guides for the placement of two other important theories: the theory of communicative action and the theory of modernity. In a first time explores the construction of the theory of society as checking Habermas recasts the assumptions of the Critical Theory, entered an evolutionary basis with emancipator claims. In a second time discusses the structure of the theory of social change in the texts of the decade of 1970, mainly for the Reconstruction of Historic Materialism, highlighting the problem of homology between ontogeny and philogenesis and attempts to equate Habermas in individual and society through of three paths: the formation of the post-conventional identity, the extent practical-moral and capacity to learn. In a third time, there is a capacity for learning as the only way that keeps open the possibility of the relationship ontofhilogenesis and only alternative that Habermas has standing to maintain his theory of social change in the Theory of Communicative Action. In this work, there is, above all, the displacement of psychology of development for the incorporation of authors linked to sociology, particularly Mead and Durkheim, targeting the stability of the relationship as an ontofhilogenesis point for the maintenance of the theory of social change and, onsequently, own critical social theory Habermas inscribed on the paradigm of communication / Doutorado / Doutor em Filosofia

Doctorat en philosophie et lettres / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

Thèse réalisée en cotutelle entre le Département de communication de l'Université de Montréal (sous la direction de François Cooren)et le Centre de sociologie des organisation de Sciences Po Paris (Institut d'études politiques de Paris; sous la direction de Bruno Latour). / Comment une organisation peut-elle agir ? Peut-elle être considérée comme un acteur en elle-même ou nécessite-t-elle que d’autres agissent pour elle ? Comment parler de son action sans présumer son existence ? Je voudrais proposer ici une approche proprement communicationnelle à la question de l’action organisationnelle. M’appuyant sur la narratologie de A. J. Greimas pour rendre apparentes certaines des idées centrales de la philosophie de l’individuation, je montre que l’organisation – et tout être social – agit en se faisant attribuer des actions. La philosophie de l’individuation est nécessaire ici pour dériver une théorie de l’action organisationnelle à partir de la manière même dont se constituent les organisations. Cela me permet notamment d’affirmer que l’organisation participe aussi elle-même à ces pratiques d’attribution, car en tant qu’elle existe déjà « plus ou moins et d’une certaine manière », elle appelle des actions particulières. À travers l’imbrication de mandats et de programmes d’actions, dans une logique d’appropriation/attribution, l’organisation peut effectivement agir tout en comptant toujours sur d’autres pour le faire. Nul besoin de s’en remettre à une ontologie essentialiste de l’organisation pour affirmer qu’elle agit elle-même, car il n’y a pas d’opposition entre affirmer que l’organisation agit et que d’autres agissent pour elle. En fait, loin de s’opposer, ces deux affirmations s’impliquent mutuellement. Les pratiques d’attribution sont nécessaires pour agir légitimement – il faut toujours agir pour autre que soi – mais aussi pour agir tout court, car la logique même de la propriété d’action, donc de pouvoir dire que ceci est mon action, suppose que l’action ne soit jamais tout à fait mienne. Les conséquences de cette proposition sur les questions de pouvoir et d’éthique sont brièvement abordées. En observant quatre terrains distincts, j’ancre cette proposition théorique dans l’empirique. Ces terrains sont une association de locataires, un projet de réforme d’un grand établissement d’enseignement français, quelques événements dans la vie d’un gestionnaire de gratte-ciel de New York et une réunion entre des représentants de Médecins sans frontières et des administrateurs de santé congolais. Compte tenu de la nature théorique de ma proposition, cette variété de terrains permet de montrer l’utilité de ces idées à l’étude d’une diversité de situations. / How can an organization act? Can it be considered as an actor in itself or does it need others to act on its behalf? How is it possible to address these questions without presupposing the organization? I would like to put forward a specifically communicational approach to the question of organizational action. Borrowing from A. J. Greimas’ narratology to make salient some of individuation philosophy’s most central ideas, I show that the organization – and any ‘social’ being – acts by being attributed actions. Individuation philosophy is necessary to derive a theory of organizational action from the very manner organizations are constituted. This allows me, among other things, to suggest that organizations themselves also play a part in attribution practices, for inasmuch as they exist “more or less and in a certain way”, they call for further actions. Through the imbrication of mandates and of programs of actions, in a logic of appropriation/attribution, the organization can act by always relying on others to do so. There is no need to invoke an essentialist ontology of organization to state that it acts by itself, for there is no opposition between stating that the organization acts and that others act for it. In fact, far from opposing, both statements imply each other. Practices of attribution are necessary for legitimate action – I must always act for someone other than myself – but also for acting at all. In other words, to be able to say that this is my action, I need this action not to be entirely my own. The consequences of this proposal on questions of power and ethics are also briefly considered. I provide my theoretical discussion with a firm empirical grounding through the study of four different fields. I analyse audio and video recordings from a tenants association, the reform project of a French higher education institution, events from the daily work of a New York skyscraper manager and a meeting between Doctors without border representatives and Congolese health administrators. Given the theoretical nature of my proposal, this variety of empirical data allows me to show the usefulness of those ideas to the study of a large array of situations.

Comment une organisation peut-elle agir ? Peut-elle être considérée comme un acteur en elle-même ou nécessite-t-elle que d’autres agissent pour elle ? Comment parler de son action sans présumer son existence ? Je voudrais proposer ici une approche proprement communicationnelle à la question de l’action organisationnelle. M’appuyant sur la narratologie de A. J. Greimas pour rendre apparentes certaines des idées centrales de la philosophie de l’individuation, je montre que l’organisation – et tout être social – agit en se faisant attribuer des actions. La philosophie de l’individuation est nécessaire ici pour dériver une théorie de l’action organisationnelle à partir de la manière même dont se constituent les organisations. Cela me permet notamment d’affirmer que l’organisation participe aussi elle-même à ces pratiques d’attribution, car en tant qu’elle existe déjà « plus ou moins et d’une certaine manière », elle appelle des actions particulières. À travers l’imbrication de mandats et de programmes d’actions, dans une logique d’appropriation/attribution, l’organisation peut effectivement agir tout en comptant toujours sur d’autres pour le faire. Nul besoin de s’en remettre à une ontologie essentialiste de l’organisation pour affirmer qu’elle agit elle-même, car il n’y a pas d’opposition entre affirmer que l’organisation agit et que d’autres agissent pour elle. En fait, loin de s’opposer, ces deux affirmations s’impliquent mutuellement. Les pratiques d’attribution sont nécessaires pour agir légitimement – il faut toujours agir pour autre que soi – mais aussi pour agir tout court, car la logique même de la propriété d’action, donc de pouvoir dire que ceci est mon action, suppose que l’action ne soit jamais tout à fait mienne. Les conséquences de cette proposition sur les questions de pouvoir et d’éthique sont brièvement abordées. En observant quatre terrains distincts, j’ancre cette proposition théorique dans l’empirique. Ces terrains sont une association de locataires, un projet de réforme d’un grand établissement d’enseignement français, quelques événements dans la vie d’un gestionnaire de gratte-ciel de New York et une réunion entre des représentants de Médecins sans frontières et des administrateurs de santé congolais. Compte tenu de la nature théorique de ma proposition, cette variété de terrains permet de montrer l’utilité de ces idées à l’étude d’une diversité de situations. / How can an organization act? Can it be considered as an actor in itself or does it need others to act on its behalf? How is it possible to address these questions without presupposing the organization? I would like to put forward a specifically communicational approach to the question of organizational action. Borrowing from A. J. Greimas’ narratology to make salient some of individuation philosophy’s most central ideas, I show that the organization – and any ‘social’ being – acts by being attributed actions. Individuation philosophy is necessary to derive a theory of organizational action from the very manner organizations are constituted. This allows me, among other things, to suggest that organizations themselves also play a part in attribution practices, for inasmuch as they exist “more or less and in a certain way”, they call for further actions. Through the imbrication of mandates and of programs of actions, in a logic of appropriation/attribution, the organization can act by always relying on others to do so. There is no need to invoke an essentialist ontology of organization to state that it acts by itself, for there is no opposition between stating that the organization acts and that others act for it. In fact, far from opposing, both statements imply each other. Practices of attribution are necessary for legitimate action – I must always act for someone other than myself – but also for acting at all. In other words, to be able to say that this is my action, I need this action not to be entirely my own. The consequences of this proposal on questions of power and ethics are also briefly considered. I provide my theoretical discussion with a firm empirical grounding through the study of four different fields. I analyse audio and video recordings from a tenants association, the reform project of a French higher education institution, events from the daily work of a New York skyscraper manager and a meeting between Doctors without border representatives and Congolese health administrators. Given the theoretical nature of my proposal, this variety of empirical data allows me to show the usefulness of those ideas to the study of a large array of situations. / Thèse réalisée en cotutelle entre le Département de communication de l'Université de Montréal (sous la direction de François Cooren)et le Centre de sociologie des organisation de Sciences Po Paris (Institut d'études politiques de Paris; sous la direction de Bruno Latour).

Doctorat en philosophie et lettres / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

My thesis tackles two related problems that have taken center stage in the recent literature on concepts: • What are the individuation conditions of concepts? Under what conditions is a concept C₁ the same concept as a concept C₂? • What are the possession conditions of concepts? What conditions must be satisfied for a thinker to have a concept C? I will develop a pluralist and contextualist theory of concept individuation and possession: different concepts have different individuation and possession conditions, and contextual factors play a crucial role in determining what concepts we attribute to other subjects when we ascribe propositional attitudes to them. In chapters 1-3, I defend a contextualist, non-Millian theory of propositional attitude ascriptions. Then, I suggest contextualist theories of ascriptions can be applied to the problem of concept individuation/possession. In particular, I use contextualism to provide a new, more effective argument for Fodor's “publicity principle”, according to which concepts must be shared in order for interpersonally applicable psychological generalizations to be possible. Publicity has important implications: in particular, it is inconsistent with existing versions of holism, on which concepts cannot be shared by ordinary thinkers. Nonetheless, in chapters 4-5 I show how holism can still play an important role in our best theory of concepts. More specifically, I argue that the tradition of appealing to modes of presentation in order to give an account of “Frege cases” is in fact committed to holism. To develop a version of holism that will give a successful account of Frege cases without violating publicity, I suggest we should adopt my pluralist-contextualist picture: on that picture, the concepts involved in a Frege case will be holistically individuated and not public, while other concepts will be more coarsely individuated and widely shared. In chapter 6, I will develop this view further by contrasting it with other pluralist theories (Weiskopf) and with rival theories of concepts, such as the localist views defended by Peacocke, Rey and Jackson.