segunda-feira, 14 de agosto de 2017

Chamada: Simpósio Direitas Brasileiras (2017)

Entre os dias 8 e 10 de novembro, o Departamento de Ciência Política da USP sediará o evento Direitas Brasileiras. O objetivo é reunir pesquisas empíricas, em qualquer área das ciências sociais, que tenham por objeto atores, partidos, ou movimentos sociais no Brasil que ocupam o espectro político-partidário da direita. Os trabalhos aceitos serão organizados em GTs e as pesquisas serão publicadas em anais eletrônicos. As regras para a submissão podem ser encontradas na chamada abaixo. Os resumos serão aceitos até 20 de agosto. 













sábado, 5 de agosto de 2017

Seminários Ciência Política USP (2o semestre/2017)

Já está disponível a programação dos seminários de ciência política da USP referente ao segundo semestre de 2017. Dentre os(as) as palestrantes convidados(as) estão, dentre outras(as), Stephen Kaplan (George Washington),  Laura Ferreira-Pereira (UMinho), Fernando Limongi (USP) e Leif Wenar (King's College). Vale notar que o objeto do seminário de Wenar - o livro Blood Oiljá foi matéria de discussão no blog (ver aqui). Os seminários são semanais e aberto ao público em geral.





quarta-feira, 26 de julho de 2017

Edição Especial Reconhecimento (Perspectiva Filosófica)

A revista Perspectiva Filosófica dedicou um número especial ao tema do reconhecimento na filosofia política contemporânea. Como explica o organizador da edição, o filósofo Filipe Campello (UFPE), a retomada da noção de reconhecimento ganhou força nos anos 90, sobretudo na teoria política e na filosofia social, com os trabalhos de Charles Taylor e Axel Honneth. Mais de vinte anos depois, podemos afirmar que as diferentes contribuições das teorias do reconhecimento para os debates sobre identidade, justiça social e ontologia social tornaram-se parte constitutiva da filosofia contemporânea. A edição reúne trabalhos apresentados no I Colóquio da La Red Latinoamericana de Estudios sobre el Reconocimiento (RELAER), realizado em 2016 em Lima. Os artigos podem ser acessados abaixo.

A edição conta também com a tradução Rousseau e a pulsão humana por reconhecimento (amour prope) de autoria de Frederik Neuhouser (Columbia). Neuhouser foi  um dos grandes responsáveis por transformar os estudos sobre Rousseau argumentando, justamente, que suas famosas genealogias sobre o desenvolvimento das artes e da desigualdade entre os homens constituem as bases modernas da noção de reconhecimento - além de mostrar, em um artigo premiado de 2013, como a teoria rousseuniana da desigualdade continua relevante para as teorias contemporâneas da justiça. Na excelente tradução publicada na revista, Neuhouser discute o conceito fundamental, e extremamente mal compreendido, de amor próprio nas obras de Rousseau, mostrando de que forma o impulso (drive) pelo reconhecimento do outro, e os padrões assimétricos de estima social que esse impulso promove na vida social, é entendido pelo filósofo como sendo a fonte mais importante de sofrimento humano e, ao mesmo, a única forma possível de apaziguamento dos males de uma sociabilidade distorcida.

Em uma entrevista de 2011, para o Blog de filosofia The Stone, Neuhouser apresenta o conceito de amor próprio em Rousseau e explica por que ele precisa ser entendido na chave de uma teodicéia racional. A introdução da noção de teodicéia no pensamento de Rousseau é uma das teses interpretativas mais interessantes de Neuhouser. Se a pulsão humana por reconhecimento é, na verdade, a única fonte de sofrimento e desigualdade entre os homens e mulheres, e se essa pulsão pode assumir tanto uma forma negativa como positiva, então Rousseau pode afirmar que não há nada intrínseco na natureza humana, ou no mundo, que nos impeça de viver de modo justo e feliz - ainda que, por outro lado, nada nos garanta esse resultado.








Filipe Campello
Eixo Temático

Frederick Neuhouser


Ana Fascioli


Martha Palacio


Juan Ormeño


Barbara Buril


Enrico Paternostro
Artigos Variados

Douglas Orben

terça-feira, 25 de julho de 2017

Chamada: 4th. International Conference Economic Philosophy (Lyon/2018)

A 4a. Conferência Internacional de Filosofia Econômica está recebendo propostas de trabalhos até o dia 15 de novembro. O evento, que será organizado nesta edição pela Ecola Normale Supérieure de Lyon, é uma conferência mundial que reúne os principais pesquisadores e pesquisadoras trabalhando nas fronteiras disciplinares entre economia e filosofia. A conferência desse ano privilegiará trabalhos dedicados à natureza, ao funcionamento, e à avaliação de normas sociais. Os palestrantes convidados desta edição são: Marc Fleurbaey (Princeton), Hilary Greaves (Oxford) e Uskali Makiäk (Helsinki). 



4th International Conference “Economic Philosophy”
Lyon, Wednesday 27th – Friday 29th June, 2018
Norms and Normativity



The 4th International Conference “Economic Philosophy” will be held at the University of Lyon from 27th to 29th June 2018. This conference is organized by the Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon, the Universities of Saint-Etienne, Lyon 2 and Lyon 3 (Triangle UMR5206, GATE Lyon Saint-Etienne UMR 5824, Irphil EA4187).

We invite economists and philosophers, but also all contributors working on economic philosophy, to submit papers relevant to the theme. Papers on other topics are also welcome.

Collective life is structured by norms. Even though such norms manifest as regularities for those who observe them, they also constitute rules to follow or ideals to mimic. May these norms be social, moral, or legal, they organize practices and orient judgments, especially in the economic sphere. Consequently, they constitute one of the first objects of study for both economics and philosophy, and more broadly for the social sciences.

From this perspective, at least three kinds of questions can be asked:

First, from an ontological point of view: What do constitute the norms? The nature of norms in themselves is debated, since such norms could refer to behavioral regularities, shared beliefs, incorporated rules, or intelligible principles, etc. What is their social function, and what is their role for individual representation and action? According to certain approaches, such as institutionalist-pragmatist approaches in economics, where institutions are defined as rules, norms are dynamic mediators between individuals and society. Norms orient individual behavior, consciously or not, intentionally or not, imperatively or through incentives, making difficult to draw a unified picture of their mode of action, making it even more difficult when such norms interact. What are their conditions of emergence? Norms evolve with economic and social life, however they can also slow down and orient the movement of both economic and social life. The origins of norms appearance, their crystallization, their laying on, or even their effacement towards other norms are complex and uncertain. What are norms’ conditions of efficacy? For instance, should the social responsibility of enterprises come under a private order or a public one?

Second, from an epistemological point of view: How to know the norms? The delimitation of the normative objects studied largely determine their conditions of analyses and orient their descriptions, as well as their explanations, which leads us to question the concepts that economists use to approach such norms. Which methodologies can guide their identification, their interpretation, and their explanation? The theoretical frameworks that are mobilized to highlight the evolution and efficacy of economic and social norms, from the rational choice theory to the theory of evolution, are multiple and often appear hardly compatible. Thus, one has to either articulate such theories together or to separate them. The theoretical framework allowing to identify such norms come under the social choice theory.

Third and finally, from an axiological point of view: How to assess and arbitrate conflict among norms? Diverse rationality or moral requirements are usually given to norms that were drawn from individual or collective behavior or that were imagined by theoretical models. However, it is not certain that such requirements offer the possibility to obtain a reliable and coherent order for these norms. From which value judgments – epistemic, moral or aesthetic – are they liable? Axiological judgments on norms can be linked (depending on the meta-ethic or more broadly on the meta-normative position one endorses) to superior rank norms, to values that would justify them, to interpretative hypotheses simply postulated, or even to preferences shaped by social or psychological preferences.

These three axes of questions lead to a reflection on normativity, that is, on what creates and imposes norms, as well as on the recognition of a specific dimension of the social and economic life. The normative, be it imperative or appreciative, distinguishes itself from the positive. Normativity is in itself the object of plural interrogations.

Is the dividing line between normative and positive really easy to draw in economic science and public action? It is often argued that norms are opposed to facts, as well as prescriptive and evaluative judgments are opposed to descriptive judgments. Some scholars challenge this dichotomy either by attempting to get rid of such distinction or by proposing to add a new one, isolating for instance the prudential from both the normative and the positive.

Can scientific discourses about economics and the economy really separate the study about fact from a normative reflection? The articulation of these two dimensions operate differently depending on whether the evaluative goal or the prescriptive one is assumed, as in welfare economics, or whether these goals are not assumed, because, for example, such goals would be contrary to an axiological imperative of neutrality. However, questions about time consistency or efficacy often lead to axiological questioning.

Can regulated judgments be considered at the origins or foundations of normativity? Norms or values, especially the moral ones, aiming to assess economic and social norms can even be described, studied, or assessed within their conflictual diversity, sometimes using economics tools such as formalization. The economist is thus steered to enable dialogue between concepts originally from meta-ethics or within social justice theories. Furthermore, the economist is pushed to interrogate the power she can have on such tools, which determine the framework of her own reflection. Besides, economics as a whole discipline is steered to create a dialog with other disciplines such as law, political science, and ethics.


Finally, which role can economists play in the production of appreciative or prescriptive discourses within the public space? Economists regular interventions in the public sphere obliges one to interrogate the norms that can regulate the production – intentionally or not – of normative effects from economics. Consequently, it seems necessary to question the standard for desirable interventions and the political interpretation of results and discourses produced by economists, as well as the place they fill in public consultation, deliberations, and public decisions.

Papers could be about reflections on norms, normativity in philosophy of economics; they could also come from any methodological perspective. Among the themes that could be addressed:


- Norms plurality and economics: social, ethic, legal norms; moral norms, justice norms; cultural norms; gender norms; linguistic norms;
- Rationality and norms: rationality norms, epistemic norms; norms and practical rationality;
- Nature, origins, and foundations of normativity: law, moral, ethic, politics; functionalism and norms efficacy; scientific expertise and constructivism;
- Norms dynamics: evolution; conflict of norms; interaction between different norms; democratic process and norms
- Positive and normative economics: facts and norms; axiological neutrality and normative aims in economics;
- Universality and plurality of norms: knowledge, interpretation and explanation of norms; cognitive sciences and norms; democracy and norms;
- Normativity approaches in economics: political philosophy, welfare theory and social choice, law and economics, institutionalisms …

Important Deadlines:


- Abstract Proposals:
Abstracts (around 500 words) should be prepared for blind review and sent at sciencesconf.org by November 15, 2018. Abstracts and papers can be written and presented either in French or in English

- Notification of acceptance:
Notification of acceptance should be sent on February 9th 2018.

- Full paper:
The final version of the paper should be sent on June 15th 2018

- Registration:
Early registrations will be accepted till April 27th 2018 and late registrations will be accepted till June 15th 2018.

Keynote speakers:
Marc Fleurbaey (University of Princeton)
Uskali Mäki (University of Helsinki)
Hilary Greaves (University of Oxford)

Scientific Committee:
Sonja Amadae (MIT, University of Helsinki)
Erik Angner (Stockholm University)
Carla Bagnoli (Universita de Modena e Reggio Emilia)
Elodie Bertrand (CNRS, ISJPS, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne)
Constanze Binder (EIPE, Erasmus Rotterdam University)
Kenneth Binmore (University College London)
Geoffrey Brennan (RSSS, Australian National University)
John Broome (University of Oxford)
Gilles Campagnolo (CNRS, Université de Marseille)
Mikael Cozic (Université Paris Est Créteil)
Speranta Dumitru (Université de Paris 5)
Franz Dietrich (CNRS & Paris School of Economics)
Jean-Sébastien Gharbi (Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne)
Muriel Gilardone (Université de Caen Normandie)
Sandye Gloria-Palermo (Université Nice Sophia-Antipolis)
Axel Gosseries (Université Catholique de Louvain)
Caroline Guibet-Lafaye (CNRS, ENS, Centre Maurice Halbwachs)
Conrad Heilmann (EIPE, Erasmus University of Rotterdam)
Cyril Hédoin (Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne)
Herrade Igersheim (CNRS, Université de Strasbourg)
Laurent Jaffro (PHARE, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne)
Fabrice Le Lec (Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne)
Caterina Marchioni (TINT, Helsinki)
Harro Maas (Centre Walras-Pareto, University of Lausanne)
Patrick Mardellat (CLERSE, Science Po Lille)
Claude Ménard (Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne)
Emmanuel Picavet (NOSOPHI, Université de Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne)
Claire Pignol (PHARE, Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne)
Julian Reiss (Durham University)
Bénédicte Reynaud (Université Paris Dauphine)
Don Ross (University of Cape Town)
Miriam Teschl (EHESS, Université de Marseille)
Stéphane Zuber (CNRS et PSE)
Danielle Zwarthoed (Chaire Hoover, Université Catholique de Louvain)

Organization Committee:
Antoinette Baujard (GATE Lyon Saint-Etienne, Université de Saint-Etienne), Olivier Brette (Triangle, INSA), Alexandre Chirat (Triangle, Université Lyon 2), Véronique Dutraive (Triangle, Université Lyon 2), Judith Favereau (Triangle, Université Lyon 2), Charles Girard (Irphil, Université Lyon 3), Pierre Leviaux (Laet, Université Lyon 2), Christophe Salvat (Triangle, CNRS)

sexta-feira, 21 de julho de 2017

Programa Max Weber de Pós-Doutorado (2017/2018)

O Programa Multidisciplinar de Pós-Doutorado Max Weber, sediado no Instituto Universitário Europeu (EUI) e coordenado por Richard Bellamy, é um dos programas multidisciplinares em ciências sociais mais bem sucedidos do mundo. Seu objetivo é reunir recém-doutores e doutoras (até 5 anos da data de defesa) nas diferentes áreas das ciências sociais e, com base em um calendário anual de seminários e workshops, prepará-los(las) para a colocação profissional na academia (ver o vídeo abaixo). Anualmente são oferecidas entre 50 a 60 bolsas de pós-doutorado para candidatos e candidatas do mundo inteiro. As datas e diretrizes das submissões podem ser encontradas na chamada abaixo:





50-60 Max Weber Post-doctoral Positions Available, EUI, Florence

Applications are now open for the 2018/19 entry to the Max Weber Multidisciplinary Post-doctoral Programme at the European University Institute (EUI) in Florence, Italy.
Amongst the largest, most prestigious, innovative and successful post doctoral programmes in the historical and social sciences, the Max Weber Programme is located in an exceptionally beautiful setting with truly outstanding research and training facilities. We offer between 50-60 fully funded 1 (all departments), 2 (SPS and Economics) and (rarely, and only in Economics) 3 year post doctoral fellowships to applicants from anywhere in the world in the fields of economics, history, law and social and political sciences. All areas and types of research within these fields are considered, including all forms of legal, social, economic, historical and political thought – both past and present.
Applicants must be within 5 years of the award of their PhD. Preference is given to those who have recently completed a doctorate, not had a postdoctoral position before and/or are on the job market. Last year 98% of Fellows found an academic position on completing the Fellowship.
In addition to the scholarships funded by the Max Weber Programme itself, there are additional grants available that are funded by the Greek, and, we anticipate, Portuguese and Slovenian governments, and by foundations in Australia and Japan to which nationals of these countries (and in some cases long-term residents as well) may also apply. We also have a memorandum of understanding with the Academy of Finland for Finnish applicants. Eligible applicants from these countries are strongly encouraged to apply, and will automatically be considered for these opportunities. For details, see:
http://www.eui.eu/ProgrammesAndFellowships/Fellowships.aspx (and scroll down to Other Fellowships)
To find out more about the programme, the training it offers and its multidisciplinary character, as well as how to apply, go to:
Be Sociable, Share!