Bourgeois heterogeneity, democratization and civil society in Fernando Henrique Cardoso
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2017 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Perspectivas |
Texto Completo: | https://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/perspectivas/article/view/10057 |
Resumo: | In his habilitation thesis Industrial entrepreneur and economic development in Brazil (1963), Fernando Henrique Cardoso discusses the participation of industrial entrepreneurs in the economic development of the country and provides elements for the analysis of their mentality, ideology and behavior. He tries to show that, with rare exceptions, there is no tendency among the members of this social class to fulfill the role of a “national bourgeoisie” capable of leading a development project and contesting the political hegemony of society. On the contrary, on its performance there would almost always be a tendency of association with foreign capital. As a consequence of this perception and his experience in CEPAL (Economic Commission for Latin America) after the military coup of 1964, Cardoso made a change of focus about the possibilities of economic development in Latin America, opening up to the consideration of other dimensions of social and political reality. At CEPAL he faces a heated debate and shows a critical position regarding the thesis of economic stagnation, according to which the peripheral countries would be doomed to “pastoralization” and underdevelopment. To oppose the stagnationist view, he formulates, in partnership with Enzo Faletto and using an innovative methodology, the “dependency theory”, which, unlike the cepaline conception and also those represented by authors such as Theotônio dos Santos, Ruy Mauro Marini and André Gunder Frank, affirmed that there was no stagnation, but development, although a dependent and associated one. Based on this reading of the real, in addition to claiming the need to analyze the concrete situation of each Latin American country, Cardoso developed the argument presented above, centered on the idea of the inexistence of an entrepreneurial national bourgeoisie and a hegemonic political project, showing that, in its place, a different type of industrial entrepreneur had been built, which was prone to develop a set of “adaptive reactions” to the dynamics of world capitalism. Such perception broadens his angle of view, shifting it from the exclusive focus on structural issues to an appreciation of the political dimension, which allows it to elaborate an understanding of the State, the civil society and the social movements, which will have a strong impact on the democratic transition. The text seeks to follow this widening of perspective through the works The Brazilian political model (1972) and Authoritarianism and democratization (1975) and in the set of articles written to Opinião newspaper. |
id |
UNESP-5_e45ca188062e6472a3dc2d35c234ae04 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/10057 |
network_acronym_str |
UNESP-5 |
network_name_str |
Perspectivas |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Bourgeois heterogeneity, democratization and civil society in Fernando Henrique CardosoHeterogeneidade burguesa, democratização e sociedade civil em Fernando Henrique CardosoFernando Henrique CardosoIndustrial entrepreneurDependenceAuthoritarianismDemocratizationCivil SocietyFernando Henrique CardosoEmpresário industrialDependênciaAutoritarismoDemocratizaçãoSociedade CivilIn his habilitation thesis Industrial entrepreneur and economic development in Brazil (1963), Fernando Henrique Cardoso discusses the participation of industrial entrepreneurs in the economic development of the country and provides elements for the analysis of their mentality, ideology and behavior. He tries to show that, with rare exceptions, there is no tendency among the members of this social class to fulfill the role of a “national bourgeoisie” capable of leading a development project and contesting the political hegemony of society. On the contrary, on its performance there would almost always be a tendency of association with foreign capital. As a consequence of this perception and his experience in CEPAL (Economic Commission for Latin America) after the military coup of 1964, Cardoso made a change of focus about the possibilities of economic development in Latin America, opening up to the consideration of other dimensions of social and political reality. At CEPAL he faces a heated debate and shows a critical position regarding the thesis of economic stagnation, according to which the peripheral countries would be doomed to “pastoralization” and underdevelopment. To oppose the stagnationist view, he formulates, in partnership with Enzo Faletto and using an innovative methodology, the “dependency theory”, which, unlike the cepaline conception and also those represented by authors such as Theotônio dos Santos, Ruy Mauro Marini and André Gunder Frank, affirmed that there was no stagnation, but development, although a dependent and associated one. Based on this reading of the real, in addition to claiming the need to analyze the concrete situation of each Latin American country, Cardoso developed the argument presented above, centered on the idea of the inexistence of an entrepreneurial national bourgeoisie and a hegemonic political project, showing that, in its place, a different type of industrial entrepreneur had been built, which was prone to develop a set of “adaptive reactions” to the dynamics of world capitalism. Such perception broadens his angle of view, shifting it from the exclusive focus on structural issues to an appreciation of the political dimension, which allows it to elaborate an understanding of the State, the civil society and the social movements, which will have a strong impact on the democratic transition. The text seeks to follow this widening of perspective through the works The Brazilian political model (1972) and Authoritarianism and democratization (1975) and in the set of articles written to Opinião newspaper.Em sua tese de livre docência, Empresário industrial e desenvolvimento econômico no Brasil (1963), Fernando Henrique Cardoso discute a participação do empresariado industrial no desenvolvimento econômico do país e fornece elementos para a análise de sua mentalidade, de sua ideologia e de seu comportamento. Procura mostrar que, com raras exceções, não há entre os componentes dessa classe social a propensão de cumprir o papel de uma “burguesia nacional”, capaz de comandar um projeto de desenvolvimento e de disputar a hegemonia política da sociedade. Pelo contrário, em sua atuação haveria quase sempre uma tendência de associação com o capital estrangeiro. Como consequência dessa percepção e de sua experiência na CEPAL depois do golpe militar de 1964, Cardoso efetiva uma mudança de foco acerca das possibilidades do desenvolvimento econômico na América Latina, abrindo-se à consideração de outras dimensões da realidade social e política. Na CEPAL, defronta-se com um acirrado debate e manifesta posição crítica com relação à tese da estagnação econômica, segundo a qual os países periféricos estariam fadados à “pastorização” e ao subdesenvolvimento. Para se contrapor à visão estagnacionista, formula, em parceria com Enzo Faletto e utilizando-se de uma metodologia inovadora, a “teoria da dependência”, que, diferentemente da concepção cepalina e também daquelas representadas por autores como Theotônio dos Santos, Ruy Mauro Marini e André Gunder Frank, afirmava que não havia estagnação, mas sim desenvolvimento, ainda que dependente e associado. Com base nessa leitura do real, além de reivindicar a necessidade da análise da situação concreta de cada país da América Latina, Cardoso desenvolvia o argumento apresentado anteriormente, centrado na ideia de inexistência de uma burguesia nacional empreendedora e portadora de um projeto político hegemônico, para mostrar que; em seu lugar, teria se constituído um tipo de empresário industrial propenso a desenvolver um conjunto de “reações adaptativas” face à dinâmica do capitalismo mundial. Tal percepção amplia seu ângulo de visão, deslocando-o do foco exclusivo nas questões estruturais para uma valorização da dimensão política, o que lhe permite elaborar uma compreensão do Estado, da sociedade civil e dos movimentos sociais, que terá forte impacto na transição democrática. O texto procura acompanhar essa sua ampliação de perspectiva através das obras O modelo político brasileiro, de 1972, e Autoritarismo e democratização, de 1975, e no conjunto de artigos escritos no jornal Opinião.Universidade Estadual Paulista / UNESP2017-07-05info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/perspectivas/article/view/10057Perspectivas: Revista de Ciências Sociais; v. 46 (2015)1984-02410101-3459reponame:Perspectivasinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPporhttps://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/perspectivas/article/view/10057/6612Copyright (c) 2017 Perspectivas: Revista de Ciências Sociaisinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessBaptista, Katia Aparecida2017-07-05T17:46:44Zoai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/10057Revistahttps://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/perspectivasPUBhttps://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/perspectivas/oai||lahuerta@fclar.unesp.br1984-02410101-3459opendoar:2017-07-05T17:46:44Perspectivas - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Bourgeois heterogeneity, democratization and civil society in Fernando Henrique Cardoso Heterogeneidade burguesa, democratização e sociedade civil em Fernando Henrique Cardoso |
title |
Bourgeois heterogeneity, democratization and civil society in Fernando Henrique Cardoso |
spellingShingle |
Bourgeois heterogeneity, democratization and civil society in Fernando Henrique Cardoso Baptista, Katia Aparecida Fernando Henrique Cardoso Industrial entrepreneur Dependence Authoritarianism Democratization Civil Society Fernando Henrique Cardoso Empresário industrial Dependência Autoritarismo Democratização Sociedade Civil |
title_short |
Bourgeois heterogeneity, democratization and civil society in Fernando Henrique Cardoso |
title_full |
Bourgeois heterogeneity, democratization and civil society in Fernando Henrique Cardoso |
title_fullStr |
Bourgeois heterogeneity, democratization and civil society in Fernando Henrique Cardoso |
title_full_unstemmed |
Bourgeois heterogeneity, democratization and civil society in Fernando Henrique Cardoso |
title_sort |
Bourgeois heterogeneity, democratization and civil society in Fernando Henrique Cardoso |
author |
Baptista, Katia Aparecida |
author_facet |
Baptista, Katia Aparecida |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Baptista, Katia Aparecida |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Fernando Henrique Cardoso Industrial entrepreneur Dependence Authoritarianism Democratization Civil Society Fernando Henrique Cardoso Empresário industrial Dependência Autoritarismo Democratização Sociedade Civil |
topic |
Fernando Henrique Cardoso Industrial entrepreneur Dependence Authoritarianism Democratization Civil Society Fernando Henrique Cardoso Empresário industrial Dependência Autoritarismo Democratização Sociedade Civil |
description |
In his habilitation thesis Industrial entrepreneur and economic development in Brazil (1963), Fernando Henrique Cardoso discusses the participation of industrial entrepreneurs in the economic development of the country and provides elements for the analysis of their mentality, ideology and behavior. He tries to show that, with rare exceptions, there is no tendency among the members of this social class to fulfill the role of a “national bourgeoisie” capable of leading a development project and contesting the political hegemony of society. On the contrary, on its performance there would almost always be a tendency of association with foreign capital. As a consequence of this perception and his experience in CEPAL (Economic Commission for Latin America) after the military coup of 1964, Cardoso made a change of focus about the possibilities of economic development in Latin America, opening up to the consideration of other dimensions of social and political reality. At CEPAL he faces a heated debate and shows a critical position regarding the thesis of economic stagnation, according to which the peripheral countries would be doomed to “pastoralization” and underdevelopment. To oppose the stagnationist view, he formulates, in partnership with Enzo Faletto and using an innovative methodology, the “dependency theory”, which, unlike the cepaline conception and also those represented by authors such as Theotônio dos Santos, Ruy Mauro Marini and André Gunder Frank, affirmed that there was no stagnation, but development, although a dependent and associated one. Based on this reading of the real, in addition to claiming the need to analyze the concrete situation of each Latin American country, Cardoso developed the argument presented above, centered on the idea of the inexistence of an entrepreneurial national bourgeoisie and a hegemonic political project, showing that, in its place, a different type of industrial entrepreneur had been built, which was prone to develop a set of “adaptive reactions” to the dynamics of world capitalism. Such perception broadens his angle of view, shifting it from the exclusive focus on structural issues to an appreciation of the political dimension, which allows it to elaborate an understanding of the State, the civil society and the social movements, which will have a strong impact on the democratic transition. The text seeks to follow this widening of perspective through the works The Brazilian political model (1972) and Authoritarianism and democratization (1975) and in the set of articles written to Opinião newspaper. |
publishDate |
2017 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2017-07-05 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/perspectivas/article/view/10057 |
url |
https://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/perspectivas/article/view/10057 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/perspectivas/article/view/10057/6612 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2017 Perspectivas: Revista de Ciências Sociais info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2017 Perspectivas: Revista de Ciências Sociais |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Estadual Paulista / UNESP |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Estadual Paulista / UNESP |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Perspectivas: Revista de Ciências Sociais; v. 46 (2015) 1984-0241 0101-3459 reponame:Perspectivas instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) instacron:UNESP |
instname_str |
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
instacron_str |
UNESP |
institution |
UNESP |
reponame_str |
Perspectivas |
collection |
Perspectivas |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Perspectivas - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||lahuerta@fclar.unesp.br |
_version_ |
1800215728290267136 |