Dystopian fiction as intended in the Western literary tradition is a 20 th century phenomenon on the Arabic literary scene. This relatively new genre has been experiencing an uplift since the beginning of the 21 st century and many works that have been defined dystopias have been published and translated into English in the last 10 – 15 years. In order to find out their main features, Claeys’s categorization of literary dystopias is applied and a thematic analysis is carried out on four Arabic dystopian works of narrative, written by authors from different parts of the Arabic world. The analysis shows that 21 st century Arabic dystopias are political dystopias, with totalitarianism as their main variation. Rather than on society, their focus is on the individual, and more specifically on personal freedom. The totalitarian constraints are mainly caused by religious fundamentalism and bureaucratic procedures. Surveillance and control over population are implemented by means of religious precepts and bureaucratic constructions, together with, in some instances, control over language and technological devices. Political totalitarianism regardless of a specific political ideology is identified as main theme. The thesis suggests that a Western-based classification framework is only partially suitable for Arabic dystopian fiction of the 21 st century and that further research, including but not limited to a specific classification theory for Arabic dystopian fiction, is necessary to properly investigate this new literary trend in Arabic literature.

Esta tese pergunta pelo sentido do pária na obra de Hannah Arendt, buscando compreende-lo dentro do sentido mais amplo do pensamento político da autora. A pesquisa teve como ponto de partida artigos reunidos na coletânea Escritos Judaicos, em que a autora tratou do pária pelo viés de experiências dos judeus europeus, sobretudo entre o século 19 e o século 20; passou por Origens do Totalitarismo (1951), texto em que Arendt definiu o movimento de exclusão e destruição de párias europeus, em especial os judeus, como o “agente catalítico” do colapso da Europa; chegando a textos como A Condição Humana (1958), em que Arendt apresentou a pluralidade e a unicidade como novos princípios requeridos pela reconstrução da dignidade humana num contexto póstotalitário. Articulando-se de forma não-monística, este texto tem, como eixos, temas da obra de Arendt como a assimilação, tentativa de absorção de judeus e outros párias pelo “social”; a despersonalização, movimento radical de dissolução da personalidade e alienação do “eu” em favor de forças históricas; e a unicidade, como condição básica de seres humanos plurais e insubstituíveis. O trabalho sustenta, de forma geral, que a experiência do pária, levando em conta sua exclusão, desaparecimento e tentativa de reaparecimento, é um exemplo fundamental para a ação e o pensamento políticos na contemporaneidade. / This dissertation questions the meaning of the pariah in Hannah Arendt’s work, aiming at its comprehension within the broader context of Arendt’s political thought. The research departed from articles published in the anthology The Jewish Writings, in which Arendt approached the pariah relying on experiences of European Jews, mainly between the 19th and the 20th centuries; dealt with The Origins of Totalitarianism, text in which she defined the exclusion and destruction of European pariahs, specially Jews, as the “catalytic agent” of Europe’s broader collapse; arrived at texts such as The Human Condition (1958), in which Arendt presented plurality and uniqueness as new principles required by the reestablishment of human dignity in a post-totalitarian world. Developed in non-monistic lines, this text deals with topics of Arendt’s work, as assimilation, the attempt of absorption of Jews and other pariahs by the “social”; depersonalization, the radical movement of dissolution of personality and alienation of the ego towards historical forces; and uniqueness, as a basic condition of plural and irreplaceable human beings. It holds, in broad terms, that the pariah’s experience, its exclusion, disappearance and attempt of reappearance, is a fundamental example for acting and thinking politically in the present world.

Considerado o primeiro partido político de massas do Brasil, a Ação Integralista Brasileira (AIB), fundada em 1932 pelo escritor paulista Plínio Salgado, foi um movimento de feições políticas e culturais de intensa atuação (legal) até 1937, quando foi colocado na ilegalidade pelo Estado Novo de Getúlio Vargas. Organização hierárquica, possuidora de toda uma ritualística elaborada (contava com uniforme, milícia, bandeira, hino, datas comemorativas e toda uma sorte de rituais para diversas ocasiões), a Ação Integralista Brasileira serviu de pólo aglutinador de uma série de idéias contrárias ao liberalismo e ao comunismo e que propunham uma nova forma de estrutura política, social e econômica para o País. Diversos intelectuais congregaram-se sob a AIB, concedendo-lhe, assim, outra característica marcante: a existência de variadas propostas no interior do Integralismo as quais propiciaram a elaboração de integralismos, isto é, proposições que, por vezes, distinguiam-se de outras, conferindo considerável heterogeneidade ao movimento. Assim, este trabalho tem por objetivo analisar e compreender os integralismos de dois de seus principais intelectuais, Plínio Salgado e Miguel Reale, que produziram propostas não só de visível abrangência (trazendo diversos elementos para suas reflexões) como bastante distintas entre si. De um lado Plínio Salgado elaboraria um integralismo de feições totalitárias, enquanto do outro, Miguel Reale ocupar-se-ia com um caracteristicamente conservador, dotado de traços autoritários. Por meio de uma análise isolada de cada proposta, procurar-se-á, em um primeiro momento, demonstrar quais elementos no pensamento de cada autor viabilizam sua aproximação do totalitarismo, do conservadorismo e do autoritarismo, para em seguida destacar onde residem algumas das principais diferenças entre eles. / Considered Brazils first mass party, the Ação Integralista Brasileira (AIB), founded in 1932 by the paulista writer Plínio Salgado, was a political and cultural movement with intensive (legal) activity until 1937, when it was put on illegality by Getúlio Vargas Estado Novo. Hierarchical organization with an elaborated ritualistic (it counted with an uniform, a militia, a flag, an anthem, celebrations dates and all sort of rituals for different occasions), the Ação Integralista Brasileira worked as an attraction pole for a series of ideas which were against liberalism and communism and, therefore, proposed a new form of political, social and economic structure for the country. Several intellectuals joined the AIB, giving it another important characteristic: the existence of various proposals inside the Integralismo which allowed the creations of integralismos, i.e., propositions that were different from the others, conferring a great heterogeneity to the movement. Thus, the objective of this work is to analyse and to understand the integralismos of two of its main intellectuals, Plínio Salgado e Miguel Reale, whom elaborated proposals that were quite different, almost the opposite from each other. Plínio Salgado created an integralismo with totalitarian characteristics, and Miguel Reale, with conservative and authoritarian ones. By analysing each proposal, one isolated from the other, this work is going to, first, try to demonstrate which elements in the thought of each author allows its approach to the totalitarianism, the conservatism and the authoritarianism; and then, put in relief the main differences between them.

Considerado o primeiro partido político de massas do Brasil, a Ação Integralista Brasileira (AIB), fundada em 1932 pelo escritor paulista Plínio Salgado, foi um movimento de feições políticas e culturais de intensa atuação (legal) até 1937, quando foi colocado na ilegalidade pelo Estado Novo de Getúlio Vargas. Organização hierárquica, possuidora de toda uma ritualística elaborada (contava com uniforme, milícia, bandeira, hino, datas comemorativas e toda uma sorte de rituais para diversas ocasiões), a Ação Integralista Brasileira serviu de pólo aglutinador de uma série de idéias contrárias ao liberalismo e ao comunismo e que propunham uma nova forma de estrutura política, social e econômica para o País. Diversos intelectuais congregaram-se sob a AIB, concedendo-lhe, assim, outra característica marcante: a existência de variadas propostas no interior do Integralismo as quais propiciaram a elaboração de integralismos, isto é, proposições que, por vezes, distinguiam-se de outras, conferindo considerável heterogeneidade ao movimento. Assim, este trabalho tem por objetivo analisar e compreender os integralismos de dois de seus principais intelectuais, Plínio Salgado e Miguel Reale, que produziram propostas não só de visível abrangência (trazendo diversos elementos para suas reflexões) como bastante distintas entre si. De um lado Plínio Salgado elaboraria um integralismo de feições totalitárias, enquanto do outro, Miguel Reale ocupar-se-ia com um caracteristicamente conservador, dotado de traços autoritários. Por meio de uma análise isolada de cada proposta, procurar-se-á, em um primeiro momento, demonstrar quais elementos no pensamento de cada autor viabilizam sua aproximação do totalitarismo, do conservadorismo e do autoritarismo, para em seguida destacar onde residem algumas das principais diferenças entre eles. / Considered Brazils first mass party, the Ação Integralista Brasileira (AIB), founded in 1932 by the paulista writer Plínio Salgado, was a political and cultural movement with intensive (legal) activity until 1937, when it was put on illegality by Getúlio Vargas Estado Novo. Hierarchical organization with an elaborated ritualistic (it counted with an uniform, a militia, a flag, an anthem, celebrations dates and all sort of rituals for different occasions), the Ação Integralista Brasileira worked as an attraction pole for a series of ideas which were against liberalism and communism and, therefore, proposed a new form of political, social and economic structure for the country. Several intellectuals joined the AIB, giving it another important characteristic: the existence of various proposals inside the Integralismo which allowed the creations of integralismos, i.e., propositions that were different from the others, conferring a great heterogeneity to the movement. Thus, the objective of this work is to analyse and to understand the integralismos of two of its main intellectuals, Plínio Salgado e Miguel Reale, whom elaborated proposals that were quite different, almost the opposite from each other. Plínio Salgado created an integralismo with totalitarian characteristics, and Miguel Reale, with conservative and authoritarian ones. By analysing each proposal, one isolated from the other, this work is going to, first, try to demonstrate which elements in the thought of each author allows its approach to the totalitarianism, the conservatism and the authoritarianism; and then, put in relief the main differences between them.

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / A presente dissertação de mestrado pretende abordar as vicissitudes do discurso do capitalista sobre o sujeito. Para tanto, toma como ponto de partida a afirmação de Lacan, em suas palestras em Saint-Anne sobre O saber do psicanalista, de que o que caracteriza o discurso do capitalista é a foraclusão da castração. A partir dessa colocação representada no matema do discurso do capitalista pelo desaparecimento da disjunção entre produto e verdade, bem como pela ausência de um vetor entre agente e Outro, o que demonstra que esse discurso não promove laço social , percorre-se algumas questões que reverberam sobre o sujeito, dentre as quais se destaca: se o sujeito não existe fora do laço social, que sorte de efeitos a ele resulta por freqüentar um discurso que se apresenta como dominante na contemporaneidade em que a castração está foracluída e, portanto, também o liame social? Tendo em vista que a Verwerfung é o que opera no discurso do capitalista, lança-se a hipótese de que a esquizofrenização no nível do discurso resulte na propagação do que Helene Deutsch convencionou chamar de como se. Esse fenômeno surgiria como uma suplência imaginária a que recorreria o sujeito como estabilização face aos efeitos decorrentes da foraclusão da castração no discurso do capitalista. Trata-se de um discurso psicotizante que, ao contrário dos quatro discursos apresentados por Lacan no seminário O avesso da psicanálise, não promove laço social. Se discurso é o que faz laço social e Freud, em 1930, anunciara que a principal fonte de sofrimento de que padece o homem é a relação com os demais, o mal-estar na civilização é o mal-estar dos laços sociais. Logo, os quatro discursos participam do mal-estar na civilização. Ao contrário destes, o discurso do capitalista, na tentativa de eliminar o mal-estar, foraclui o laço social. Por promover o gozo ao invés da renúncia à pulsão, o discurso do capitalista acaba por instigá-la. E, como toda pulsão é pulsão de morte, não é outra coisa senão o empuxo mortífero ao gozo que o discurso do capitalismo produz. A potência que o discurso do capitalista adquiriu na contemporaneidade é analisada a partir de sua íntima relação com o discurso da ciência. A partir de algumas colocações de Hannah Arendt acerca da banalidade do mal presente em um sistema totalitário como o nazista, cogita-se a hipótese de que a aliança entre os discursos do capitalista e da ciência resulte no surgimento de uma nova forma de totalitarismo: o totalitarismo de consumo. / This dissertation aims to address the vicissitudes of the discourse of the capitalist on the subject. For this purpose, it takes as a starting point Lacan statement in his lectures at Saint-Anne on The psychoanalysts knowledge, that what characterizes the discourse of the capitalist is the foreclosure of castration. From this statement - represented in the matheme of the discourse of the capitalist by the disappearance of the disjunction between product and truth, and by the absence of a vector between the agent and the Other, which shows that this discourse does not promote social bond - it traverses some issues that reverberate on the subject, among which stands out: if the subject does not exist apart from the social bond, what sort of effects does he suffer by following a discourse - which appears to be dominant in contemporary society - in which castration is foreclosed and, therefore, also the social bond? Since the Verwerfung is what functions in the discourse of the capitalist, there is the hypothesis that schizophrenizing at the level of the discourse could spread what Helene Deutsch conventionally called as if (als ob). This phenomenon emerges as an imaginary supplementation used by the subject to reach stabilization in view of the effects of castration foreclosure in the discourse of the capitalist. This is a psychosis-inducing discourse that, unlike the four discourses introduced by Lacan at the seminar Psychoanalysis Upside-Down, promotes no social bonding. If the discourse is what promotes social bond and Freud in 1930, announced that the main reason why men suffer is due to the relationship with others, the malaise in civilization is the malaise of social bonds. Thus, the four discourses participate in the malaise of civilization. Unlike these, the discourse of the capitalist, in an attempt to eliminate the malaise, forecloses the social bond. As it promotes enjoyment rather than the renunciation of drive, the discourse of the capitalist eventually instigate it. And, as every drive is a death drive, the discourse of the capitalist produces nothing but the deadly thrust to enjoyment. The power the discourse of the capitalist acquired in contemporary society is analyzed from its close relationship with the discourse of science. From some statements of Hannah Arendt on the banality of evil present in a totalitarian system, such as the Nazi, there is the hypothesis that the alliance between the discourses of the capitalist, and science results in the emergence of a new form of totalitarianism: the totalitarianism of consumption.

La carrière intellectuelle d'Ernest Seillière de Laborde (1866-1955) s'étendit de l'affaire Dreyfus (son premier essai remarqué, une étude consacrée à Ferdinand Lassalle récompensée du prix Marcellin-Guérin de l'Académie française, parut en 1897) à la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (il fit son entrée sous la Coupole en 1946). Parce qu'il considérait que tout bon représentant de l'élite avait pour mission de guider l'ensemble de la civilisation sur la voie du progrès, ce polytechnicien de formation dédia sa vie à l'élaboration d'une doctrine. Sa philosophie de l'Impérialisme, appuyée sur une vision organiciste de la société et une conception disciplinaire de la religion, imprégnée de darwinisme, de nietzschéisme et de gobinisme, et marquée par la mode des sciences psychologiques ainsi que par certains courants de la pensée allemande de son temps, n'avait pour autre but que de permettre à une bourgeoisie déclinante de répondre de manière adaptée à la montée en puissance et aux revendications sociales et politiques des masses. Le Romantisme, d'abord perçu comme un facteur de dégénérescence, fut progressivement envisagé par Seillière comme le pourvoyeur d'une formidable énergie qu'il importait de canaliser dans un sens impérialiste utilitaire. Opposant un Romantisme allemand énergique et virile à un Romantisme français féminin et anémiant, le germaniste en vint à faire la promotion d'un Socialisme rationnel que lui-même et certains de ses commentateurs crurent identifier dans les différents régimes totalitaires qui se développèrent au cours de l'Entre-deux-guerres. Celui qui se présentait comme un historien-psychologue se garda de jouer les premiers rôles dans les grands débats qui agitèrent le monde intellectuel français de son temps. La pensée de cet auteur prolifique ne fut pas pour autant ignorée de ses contemporains, et fit même quelques émules aux sensibilités et trajectoires diverses, mais dont les pensées demeuraient animées par une même obsession du déclin. / French thinker Ernest Seillière de Laborde (1866-1955) pursued a long career from the affaire Dreyfus (his first notable study dealing with Ferdinand Lassalle, rewarded by the prix Marcellin-Guérin of the Académie française, was published in 1897) to the end of the World War II (he entered the Académie française in 1946). The polytechnicien dedicated his entire life in developping a doctrine, claiming that an authentic member of the elite had to lead the whole civilization on the path to progress. His philosophy of Imperialism, based upon an organicist outlook of society and a constraining approach of religion, imbued with Darwinism, Nietzscheanism and Gobinism, and affected by a growing interest for psychological sciences and a number of contemporary german thinking movements, aimed to enable a decaying bourgeoisie to respond efficiently to the issu of the political rise and social demand of the masses. At first, Romanticism was seen by Seillière as a degeneration factor. But it was soon considered by the thinker as a provider of a great power that had to be controlled in an imperialistic utilitarian way. Drawing a comparison between a virile and dynamic Germanic Romanticism and a feminine and weakening French one, the Germanist promoted a rationalitic Socialism he and some of his commentators foresaw in the totalitarian regimes that emerged during the interwar period. He who described hisself as an historian-psychologist did not play the first part in the various intellectual debates of his time. However, the thought of this prolific writer was not ignored by his contemporaries, and raised interest within various thinkers obsessed with the idea of decline.

O presente trabalho propõe um estudo sobre a critica de George Orwell ao processo de manipulação da memória nas sociedades do entre guerras europeu. Serão tomados como referência para a compreensão desta crítica, seus escritos de não-ficção, entre os anos de 1937 e 1949, período que abarca suas reflexões sobre a Guerra Civil espanhola (1936-9) e a publicação de seu último trabalho em vida, o 1984 (1949). É inegável a profusão crítica em relação ao totalitarismo na obra de Orwell, especialmente em seus escritos ficcionais do final da década de 1940 o Animal Farm e o 1984. Contudo, foi exatamente em sua obra não-ficcional, tematizada aqui, que se construiu todo o arcabouço reflexivo de sua critica a supressão das liberdades individuais nas sociedades europeias das décadas de 1930 e 1940, especialmente através do processo de manipulação da memória. A critica de Orwell não visa somente os governos autoritários na Europa desse período ou em suas versões totalitárias no nazismo e stalinismo mas acaba por atingir a sociedade inglesa da década de 1940. O que Orwell vai destacar, principalmente em sua crítica jornalística, é um processo de manipulação das informações veiculadas na imprensa inglesa, seja ele institucional, através de órgãos governamentais, como o Ministério da Informação, seja na supressão de informações em periódicos de influência ou controle comunista (no sentido de não divulgarem posições contrárias às determinações do Cominterm), apontando para a construção de uma visão ´´oficial``, ´´autorizada``, primeiro sobre a Guerra Civil espanhola, e posteriormente, sobre inúmeros acontecimentos relacionados à 2º Guerra Mundial e a propaganda de guerra. / This work proposes a study of George Orwell\'s critical to the process of handling the memory in the societies of interwar Europe. Will be taken as reference to understand this criticism, his nonfictional writing, between the years 1937 and 1949, a period that spans his reflections on the Spanish Civil War (1936-9) and the publication of his latest work in life, 1984 (1949). Undeniably the critical profusion of the totalitarianism of Orwell\'s work, especially in his fictional writings of the late 1940s - the Animal Farm and 1984. However, it was exactly in his non-fiction, implied here, which is built around the framework reflective of the criticism of suppression of individual liberties in the European societies of the 1930s and 1940s, especially through the process of handling the memory. The criticism of Orwell does not only authoritarian governments in Europe of 7 that period - or their versions in totalitarian States of Nazism and Stalinism - but ultimately reach the English society of the 1940s. What Orwell will highlight, especially in its journalistic criticism, is a process of manipulation of information broadcast by the English press, be it institutional, through government agencies such as the Ministry of Information, either in the suppression of information in journals of influence or communist control (in the sense not to disclose positions contrary to the determinations of Cominterm), pointing to the construction of a official, authorized version, first on the Spanish Civil War, and later on various events related to World War Two and the war propaganda.

My thesis explores changes in media technologies and the way alternative media affect the dynamics of power in totalitarian societies. How totalitarian states respond to these media trends and the security importance of the information coming from the inside of the totalitarian territory are the main interests of my essay. My primary sources in this research are Animal Farm, a novella by George Orwell; the film The Lives of Others (2006) by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck; and the recently published novel, The Revisionists, by Thomas Mullen. My primary goals in this essay are firstly to argue that the social and political conditions presented in these works match definitions of totalitarian societies. Using my secondary sources, I introduce the main characteristics of totalitarian societies and highlight their mechanism in my primary sources. Secondly, I investigate the role of media in such societies along with technological changes that have added new items to security concerns. Besides reading the reflections of reality in fictional presentations in some cases, I give examples from the 21st century world that we are living in and argue that it is an extension of the conditions presented in Animal Farm and The Lives of Others.

Raymond Aron is widely recognised as France's greatest twentieth-century liberal, but the specifically liberal quality of his thought has not received the detailed historical analysis that it deserves. His work appears to fit so well within widely accepted understandings of post-war European liberalism, which has been defined primarily in terms of its anti-totalitarian, Cold War orientation, that its liberal status has been somewhat taken for granted. This has been exacerbated by an especially strong perception of a correlation between liberalism and anti-totalitarianism in France, whose late twentieth-century renaissance in liberal political thought is viewed as the product of an 'anti-totalitarian turn' in the late 1970s. While the moral authority accumulated through decades of opposition to National Socialism and Soviet communism made Aron into an anti-totalitarian icon, his early contribution to the rediscovery of France's liberal tradition established his reputation as a leader of the renaissance in the study of liberal political thought. Aron's prominence within this wider renaissance suggests that an historical treatment of his thought is overdue, but while the assumptions underpinning his reputation are not baseless, they do need to be critically scrutinised if such a treatment is to be credible. In pursuit of this end, two main arguments are developed in the present thesis. These are, first, that Aron's liberalism was more a product of the inter-war crisis of European liberalism than of the Cold War and, second, that his relationship with the French liberal tradition was primarily active and instrumental rather than passive and receptive. The first argument indicates that Aron's liberalism developed through a dialogue with and partial integration of important strands of anti-liberal crisis thought during these inter-war years; the second that earlier liberals with whose work he is frequently associated - notably Montesquieu and Tocqueville - had no substantial formative influence on his political thought. These contentions are interrelated in that Aron's post-war interpretation of his chosen liberal forebears was driven by a need to address specific problems arising from the liberal political epistemology that he formulated before the Second World War. It is by establishing in detail the link between Aron's reading of Montesquieu and Tocqueville and these earlier writings that the thesis makes its principal contribution to the existing literature on Aron, but several other original interpretations of his work are offered across its four thematic chapters on 'Political Epistemology', 'Anti-totalitarianism', 'The End of Ideology' and 'Instrumentalizing the French Liberal Tradition'. Regarding Aron's relationship with the wider late twentieth-century recovery of liberal political thought in France, it contends that the specific liberal renaissance to which he contributed most substantially emerged not as part of the anti-totalitarian turn, but in hostile reaction to the events of May 1968. This informs a broader argument that French liberal renaissance of these years was considerably more heterogeneous than is often assumed.

Quelle qualification morale peut-on attribuer aux criminels nazis ? Sont-ils des fous ? Peut-on leur imputer sans réserve la responsabilité de leurs actes ? Si on ne peut rendre le mal totalitaire imputable comme le mal gnostique, l’assimilation du totalitarisme à une récidive gnostique par Eric Voegelin invite à réfléchir à nouveaux frais à la problématique de la responsabilité des criminels de masse. D’une part, le "situationnisme", qui implique que c’est la situation qui transforme des individus en meurtriers de masse et le "dispositionnisme" qui désigne l’importance que peuvent revêtir les dispositions individuelles chez les criminels de masse, et d’autre part l’illusion et l’idéologie caractérisées, l’une et l’autre par la mise à l’écart de la réalité, rendent complexe la question de l’imputation des criminels génocidaires. Si ces derniers ne peuvent être disculpés, la complexité de la question de leur imputation est indéniable. Cette complexité est peut-être une invite à reconsidérer la cause sous-jacente à ce type de mal : le dualisme gnostique du bien et du mal dont le propre est de vouloir en finir avec le mal. Or la rage d’en finir avec le mal conduit souvent à la barbarie. / What moral qualification can be attributed to Nazi criminals? Are they crazy? Can we blame them unreservedly for their actions? If we can not make totalitarian evil imputable like the gnostic evil, the assimilation of totalitarianism to a Gnostic recidivism by Eric Voegelin invites us to think freshly about the problem of the responsibility of mass criminals. On the one hand, "situationism", which implies that it is the situation that transforms individuals into mass murderers and "dispositionalism" that designates the importance that individual dispositions can have for mass criminals, and On the other hand, the illusion and the ideology characterized, both by the exclusion of reality, make the question of the imputation of genocidal criminals complex. If the latter can not be exculpated, the complexity of the question of their imputation is undeniable. This complexity is perhaps an invitation to reconsider the underlying cause of this type of evil: the gnostic dualism of good and evil, whose own is to want to put an end to evil. But the rage to end evil leads often to barbarism.