6

"Political sciences have moved
for the fragmentation of knowledge"

Journal of Unicamp - How can sociology resume dialogue with other areas of knowledge?

Bonaventure - From its origins, sociology was the science that dealt with all the problems that other sciences did not address. Therefore, in some way it was born in a transdisciplinary matrix. But over time it became a discipline itself. And in a discipline very much based on the experience of three or four countries, five at most, where sociological theory developed. Today the world is in fact in a difficult situation with these models of social exclusion. At the same time, it is a world where other cultures and other knowledge have become increasingly visible. Sociology has a special vocation to be able to capture this, if it is not really captured by a narrow conception of rationality. It is possible. Naturally, science always follows practice. And the practices that are now embodied in the World Social Forum are a challenge for sociology itself in order to respond to its vocation, which is to understand the world in a broad way.

Zolo - It is a risk that sociology is a self-referential discipline. It is necessary to confront scholars from other disciplines in the human sciences, in particular economics, law and politics.

Oliveira - Sociology is quite transdisciplinary and has gained a lot of affinity with some disciplines. On the other hand, he distanced himself from political economy. Not only because political economy has become disconnected from politics, but also because the tradition of classical political economy is one of grand narratives. It was a loss for both parties - conventional economics poorly covers social processes and sociology is unaware of the new contents of contemporary political economy. But, in general, contact with other areas of knowledge is quite intense and fruitful. With linguistics, for example, there are sociological approaches that benefit from the contributions of philosophers such as Habermas, whose works have enormous influence on sociology.

Laymert - Opening up to the centrality of technology and recognizing that the time for disciplines is over.

Leila - This resumption is essential. One area of ​​knowledge no longer copes with this complexity of society. The search for an interdisciplinary perspective can be found in several areas, including sociology. When you look at the international level, this is also clear.

Pochmann - This is a difficulty not only for sociology, but a problem of science as a whole. Over the last 100 years, we have deepened the specialization of knowledge, which is important on the one hand to understand certain phenomena in detail. On the other hand, this inhibits a vision of the whole. The challenge of integrating knowledge, from different disciplines, is a challenge posed precisely because the boundaries are blurred in the discipline of knowledge. There is not much clarity as far as economics, sociology, law and so on go. This lack of clear boundaries between the disciplines of knowledge actually requires an effort not only from sociology, but from others so that we can have a transdisciplinary vision.

Ridenti - I belong to a tradition of thought that sees an interdisciplinary unity among the human sciences. A sociology that focuses excessively on the study of social facts is very impoverished. Sociology has a natural and inseparable dialogue with history, economics, politics and other sciences that, for me, are absolutely essential in today's world. The things I do, for example, are very close to politics, history, culture. I think the trend today is closer, interdisciplinarity. This does not mean that we are going to erase the specificities of all sciences, but that they all have a dialogue, especially the human sciences.

Maria Arminda - What happened from the 70s onwards in the social sciences and economics was an increasingly accentuated process of specialization of their different fields. On the one hand, this is natural, especially when the postgraduate system was established in Brazil, which led to fragmentation. But that doesn't mean that this dialogue has stopped. What is happening is that, after this process of fragmentation of the social sciences, the conclusion was reached that the set of disciplines is important to equate contemporary society.

Ortiz - I think the resumption of this dialogue is very positive. The development of sociology, anthropology and political sciences moved towards the fragmentation of knowledge. There is a positive side to this, which would be the possibility of carrying out certain detailed searches, with good precision. However, the negative side is that the object of understanding becomes entirely fragmented, and one loses sight of the fact that social sciences are actually founded on the idea of ​​a total man, who has economic, political, social and cultural activities. This man is not split, he is part of a totality. The fact that we have the possibility of moving beyond the boundaries established by the specialty, from my perspective, is very good.

Adornment - There was actually no interruption. Sociology, due to its own vocation and history, has somehow always been in conversation not only with related social sciences, but has somehow moved through other areas. It is evident that at times the issue of disciplinary boundaries appears very strongly. This begins to create a kind of endogenous attitude. I think the trend today is more and more openness, because none of these disciplinary fields can handle the complexity of the problems. It is very difficult today for me to think about violence without an anthropological and historical perspective. When I think about the issue of crime, I also have to think about the political economy of violence. It is necessary to think from the point of view of psychoanalysis; It is necessary to reflect on how they produce subjects today who are in some way tolerant of violence. Borders remain open, sometimes more intensely.

Unicamp Newspaper - The changes taking place within the world of work are a recurring challenge today. How should sociology approach the problem?

Bonaventure - This is one of the key issues as we have seen a change, in the last 15 years, resulting from the fact that work has become a global resource without, however, having created a global labor market. Therefore, markets are segmented, which means that workers' rights, which were fundamentally based on national experiences, have been completely disrupted. What we are looking for today is to try to see if it is possible to regain at a global level what was lost at a national level. It's the whole idea of ​​minimum job parameters. It is necessary to promote worker dignity at a global level, even when national conditions are adverse. Pressure on the state is very important to guarantee these rights.

Zolo - There is no doubt that one of the major themes of globalization concerns the lack of capacity that national governments have to control the domestic economy, in particular to guarantee acceptable working conditions. States need to have the capacity to prevent global market forces from interfering with the right to work. The situation of workers is highly insecure.

Olive tree - The sociology of work, which is dedicated to this field, has greatly enriched itself precisely because it tried to move away from a vision of a single, univocal and homogeneous working class, which was induced by certain texts and certain theoretical traditions. As a result, he created a very rich field. There has been a huge evolution in the last 30 years. Now, again, I understand that the sociology of work has an obligation to return to dialogue with political economy. His central concern, which included the description of work processes and working hours - which is clearly inspired by Marx - was to understand the movement of the capitalist economy. In this sense, the sociology of work, after having traveled this long journey, has the obligation to question itself again.

Laymert - The issue of work is fundamental from the perspective of what I answered in the two previous questions. The work is being completely reprogrammed using information technology. In this sense, the value of work has changed enormously; its focus stopped being effort and became invention. Sociology is already studying the effects and impacts of this transformation on society. But the tendency is to examine this issue in a transdisciplinary way in order to understand the interference of other fields of knowledge on the issue of work.

Leila - It is necessary to rethink the concepts used by the sociology of work. I don't think it's possible, for example, to think about this issue today based on classical sociological concepts. We will have to review some concepts and look for others in other areas of knowledge to think about this specificity of contemporary times.

Ridenti - Without a doubt, there is a great debate about whether the world of work today is still essential. In my opinion, work relationships have changed. To a large extent, these are relationships that escape the traditional domain of the factory floor. There is a diversification of what could be considered work. The world continues to be articulated by work, by the production of surplus. There is the fact that the system today largely eliminates work. We will then have a large universe of excluded, dispossessed, people who are expelled from the market. However, this does not invalidate the fact that there are changes in this world. Africa, for example, is a continent that is today almost excluded from global capitalism, except as a source of raw materials. This non-work is the result of the organization of a system articulated around the production of value, of capital. It is no longer done today as it was in the 19th century or in the 20th century. There are innovations and we need to keep up with this. One of the tasks of sociology is to account for these transformations in the world of work and non-work, which in my opinion continue to be essential for thinking about contemporary society.

Pochmann - We are facing a world of work that is much more insecure regarding income possibilities and adequate knowledge to fill existing vacancies, among other issues. This insecurity is somewhat accompanied by the uncertainty associated with the economy. In other words, will the economy have the capacity to expand to the point of creating jobs? What will be the engine of economic development? Will it be what the new economy says in technologies or will it continue to be the old economy. The uncertainty arising from economic activities leads to a very insecure world of work, which has often led to estrangement in relation to standards of social welfare guarantees that were achieved in the past. This is not a unique situation in the history of capitalism. We have had, with due proportions, periods as remarkable as the one we are experiencing today, such as the transition from the 19th century to the 20th century, when the great technological revolution caused the disappearance of certain occupations, but in compensation the emergence of new jobs. work and, consequently, new possibilities for struggles and social advances. This scenario we are currently experiencing is due to a situation that combines uncertainty regarding the economy, job insecurity and government instability. Some are elected with certain platforms and end up doing others completely different from those they proposed. There is a kind of social malaise that derives from the combination of these three elements.

Maria Arminda - The absence of the state and the return to the market is the institution of barbarism. All these measures that are being taken with the idea that a different rationality is being established in people's lives, in essence, are ways of explaining the effective loss of workers' rights. The state is always representative of the collective. It is a social institution in opposition to private agents. Capital, if closed in on itself, has a predatory relationship with society. Rights were the institution of anti-capitalist values ​​in a sense, which combined with capitalism throughout history.

Ortiz - The problem is not so much theoretical, but rather the constitution of society, as the state and well-being have lost ground in the countries where they have developed the most, particularly in European countries. Countries like Brazil and others in Latin America never developed a larger welfare state. The issue of well-being is a central political theme, as the instances we currently present are too incipient to handle this process. Unless we have the illusion that the market will solve things, but that is an ideology. The market is a voracious entity, in fact it doesn't care much about people's well-being. This is a major problem that takes on transnational dimensions in the contemporary world.

Ornament - They move towards the vocation of sociology, which is to decipher contemporary times in some way, whether thought of as modernity, post-modernity, post-industrial society. Our vocation is to try to decipher the meanings of this world that is in the process of change and to try in some way to have a vision that allows, beyond common sense, to understand the meanings of changes and how these changes recreate new forms of life and somehow overcome the problems of the past.

Journal of Unicamp - There is no guarantee that, despite being new, the so-called modern state will endure, especially due to the growing influence of large corporations. Will the state survive as it is or is the tendency increasingly to see its role diminished to the detriment of market interests?

Bonaventure - Since we have had this form of modern state, practically since the 17th century, we have seen very different periods. Basically, there are three major principles of regulation in modernity: the state, the market and the community. What we have seen is that between the market principle and the state principle there has been a pendular variation. There are periods in which the state dominates the market and others in which the market completely dominates the state. We are exactly in one of those periods. The hypothesis that the pendulum will swing back towards strengthening the powers of the state is not absolutely eliminable. I believe that states will continue to exist in the form they have today for many decades to come. I also think that they will increasingly act in networks, within the scope of international organizations that will have more and more competencies, although I understand that they need to be reformed. The state is a major agent of these new forms of global politics, but it no longer acts alone but rather under this rule.

Zolo - We are experiencing a process of erosion of state sovereignty, which is truly in crisis, especially fragile and poor states. We are currently witnessing a detachment of sovereignty. There is a concentration of sovereign powers in the hands of the great economic powers, especially the United States. The big problem is how to subject the economic, military and political power of the United States to general rules and pre-established procedures, that is, how to recover a function of international law.

Olive tree - This is a complex process. The state does not diminish, especially because if you look at the processes, including on a global scale, they are carried out using part of public wealth. The state is the only one that has the coercive power to make use of this wealth. The size of the state does not decrease, but what is being called market autonomization occurs. It does not mean that there is no state, but it does mean that state action is largely determined by the market. This is the most intriguing phenomenon and one that requires, once again, the resumption of the dialogue between sociology and political economy.

Laymert - The market does not exist without a state, despite appearances to the contrary. On the other hand, I understand that this pair goes together. When there is a lot of talk about weakening the state, we would have to see which sectors of the state we are talking about. There are sectors that are not weakened at all. If we consider the United States Defense budget, we see that the imperial state is doing very well, thank you. And if we consider the relations of the so-called military-industrial complex, it is also doing very well. Now, if we consider it from the point of view of social security, health, etc., it is clear that a very large weakening is noticed. Before starting to think about the disappearance of the state, it is necessary to see how these relationships between corporations, technology and the state work in this new configuration.

Leila - I see the role of the state as fundamental to thinking about these major problems of contemporary society and even contemporary sociology. The social and environmental role of the state cannot be given up. It's okay for it to diminish in the corporate sense of the term, but I think its classic functions should be resumed.

Ridenti - The state has also changed. There are those who think that the national state would be outdated in the era of globalization. The world events at the beginning of this century, with the absolutely imperialist stance of the United States, indicate that at least one state, which is the North American, is very strong. Obviously this changes everything. In the European Union, for example, you have the constitution of a supranational community, but that in itself also did not abolish the states that make it up. There are changes, but I think it is a specific topic to be studied by political sociology and other sciences. However, I see that the national state is not outdated, even if we cannot think of it in the same way as 50 or 100 years ago.

Pochmann - In the history of capitalism there is a vigorous clash between the private sector, market forces and, on the other hand, the attempt to regulate these forces through the state. If there is capitalism, in general there is a state. The size and capacity of the state are the result of social conflict and the organizational capacity of society. The perspective of the contemporary state will depend, firstly, on society's ability to react to the operation of large corporations. Is it possible for us to live with exclusively national states, when several corporations have a GDP and wealth greater than those of several countries? Or are we moving towards this more current concept of global governance, with an integration of national states based on a supranational institutionality capable of countering the power of large corporations?

Ortiz - In the context of globalization, the nation-state no longer has the centrality it once had. This does not mean that the nation-state will disappear, but rather that it loses power. The question is: what is the place of the nation-state in the context of the globalized world, within which the capitalist market plays a central role? My impression is that, over the next few decades, we will have a very strong conflict between the nation-state and the market. Because the contradiction is not ideological, fanciful. This is a structural contradiction of the situation in which we are all involved.

Ornament - As a sociologist, I believe that changes are imperative. They are part of the course of history. I cannot imagine, for example, that our state heritage from the 18th and 19th centuries will remain intact in its basic structure in this 21st century. The changes in the field of economics, in the field of politics, the type of realignment that is taking place today in international relations, show that the state is actually rebuilding its profile. We will possibly have a different state than we have today. But I don't believe, for example, that we don't have some kind of centralized political power that will be responsible for coordinating society, for the market. I don't believe, for example, that corporations will replace the state. They may have a strong power, but their ability to regulate life as a whole is very limited. Subjects are not mere patient agents. We are certainly in a very accelerated process of changing the state's configuration, but I don't think this means the end of it.

Journal of Unicamp - In certain countries, including Brazil, violence generates pockets of parallel power. To what extent do they pose a threat to the state

Bonaventure - They are a threat, without a doubt. One of the most characteristic cases here in Latin America is Colombia. The problem has worsened with the implosion of states - we have seen this in Africa - as the transnational policies of neoliberal globalization have fundamentally sought to minimize their role. They withdrew funds, removed powers, directly affecting public policies. This has caused states to become non-operational in many countries. In doing so, they gave wings to actors to take on parallel state roles. It's a worrying situation.

Zolo - In the case of Italy, more precisely in the Berlusconi phenomenon, we are experiencing a growing confusion between the public dimension and the private dimension. The Berlusconi government is extremely dangerous and indicates a cloudy future, because it used instruments of democracy and the rule of law to its benefit. The entire apparatus of the state and the constitution cannot technically prevent this subordination to a large industrial entrepreneur in the communications and real estate sector. This phenomenon also occurs in the United States, where groups from the Bush administration are deeply involved in the big oil business. Right now, for example, major arms, oil and tobacco companies are pouring enormous amounts of money into Bush's upcoming presidential campaign.

Olive tree - They are, concretely, a threat. It means that, in Weber's classic definition, the state no longer has the exclusive monopoly on violence. In Western societies created and developed in this tradition, only the state has the power to commit so-called legal violence. This is slipping away. In fact, it reveals a fracture in the state's capacity to contain the violence of private actors. This is indeed a serious threat, which does not only occur in those pockets that are more identifiable, but also in the company that tends to invade public domains. In Brazil, you see business foundations trying to take over state functions in education, leisure, culture and workforce training. This is also an important threat that we don't pay much attention to. From the outset, the private company is absolved, while the most identifiable pockets of violence are those that threaten the order of private property. Private companies, in turn, are considered the mainstay of private property. But it is also a threat to public order.

Laymert - I see these pockets as part of contemporary capitalism. Today, according to some economists, drug trafficking is a global power. He should even sit at the table with the G-7. Since it is a powerhouse, it should start recognizing the size of this problem. In this sense, it is necessary to face without hypocrisy what this is and to what extent this parallel power is corroding national states, along with other forces. The first question to consider is who is interested in the weakening of these Latin American states in relation to drug trafficking. And also, what the fight against drug trafficking would be like, whether effective or not.

Ridenti - I have a certain resistance to minimizing the importance of the state, particularly in Brazil. I think it is very clear what this state means. At the same time, it is a bit paradoxical because you have changes in parties and this state ends up inserting itself into the world order in a way that leaves very little room for maneuver in the international sphere. At the local level, the fact that you have parallel powers in the favelas, for example, would symbolize, in a certain sense, a difficulty for the state to be present to carry out its social organization activities, to provide security, health, etc. In some African countries, and in Colombia, this seems more significant to me. At the local level, even though some favelas are controlled by drug traffickers, it seems to me that they are very specific pockets. I don't see that in Brazil this is taking on a character of social disintegration, as could perhaps be the case in other countries.

Pochmann - They are a threat, but at the same time they are the result of the absence of the state. The inability of the state to perform the functions for which it was constituted and developed. We realized in São Paulo that we have a void of public space, of public intervention, and at the same time the private sector is incapable of creating conditions for inclusion, in such a way that violence ends up being a possibility generated in a context of absence of the state.

Ortiz - I don't believe that in the Brazilian case we have parallel powers as we do in the case of Colombia, which has the FARC and drug trafficking structured in an institutional way. Nor like in African countries. The Brazilian case is different, not that drug trafficking does not exist, this is within the context of the nation-state. However, the question is valid since one of the discussions, in the context of the constitution of the nation-state, is that which concerns the monopoly of violence. This means that the state, through its established forces - whether the army or the police - would establish order within the national territory. In the context of globalization, the big problem is that there is a multiplicity of other actors who have the capacity to use the means of violence. Within this context of an expanded territory on the planet, maintaining order and the monopoly of violence is difficult. See, for example, the United States invasion of Iraq. This is a unilateral act by a nation-state that believes it has a monopoly on violence, but the moment it wins the war, it cannot maintain order. It is a serious problem that will multiply during the 21st century, to the extent that there is a hyper-sophisticated development of techniques of violence, and to the extent that it is, and was, difficult to establish a peace order. Previously, the borders of nation-states were sufficient to establish this order. Nowadays, it is no longer. The groups that multiply today are not only multiplying in relation to countries, but also in a transnational sphere.

Ornament - In a sense, you have parallel powers throughout society. You have civil organizations, parties, companies, universities. I don't see any problem with that. The problem is that all these powers are regulated based on a legitimate conception, based on the rule of law. These powers are encompassed in a conception based on a pact, based on agreements by which no power can place itself above another by its free and spontaneous will. The problem is actually finding different powers that have some place where they can be interchangeable, where negotiations can take place, be it public debate forums, legislative houses, etc. The problems lie with those powers that act outside the legitimate rules of the political game, the recognition of political life, and powers that impose themselves through the use of force. For example, in the case of organized crime and how you bring that into the legal field. In the case of Colombia, on the one hand, the state lost the state monopoly on violence, which means that there are groups in society, for different reasons, that claim the right to use violence. When you claim, as an organized group, the right to use violence, you are claiming that the stronger will prevail over the stronger. Modern society was built to protect the weakest from the overwhelming power of the strongest. The problem is not that there are powers and that there are differentiated powers, but rather that you have rules by which you can make powers equitable and prevent the stronger from destroying the weaker.

Continued on page 8