cunoaştere – cultură Şi adrian gorun

8/11/2019 Cunoatere Cultur i Adrian Gorun

1/20


2/20

Analele Universit ii Constantin Brncu i din Trgu Jiu, Seria Litere i tiin e Sociale, Nr. 2/2008

Annals of the Constantin Brncu i University of Trgu Jiu, Series Letters and Social Sciences, No. 2/2008

6

uman. n acelai timp, devine critic iselectiv: Nu se poate pune pe acelai plan ocunoatere elementar , intrinsec (atribut alontisului uman), care se regsete n codulgenetic uman, n proiectul existenial alfiinei umane (cai component a vieii), cu ocunoatere obiectivat, critic, reflexiv. Ocunoatere elementar reprezint universalitateai identitatea fiinei umane cafiin bio-psihic, socio-cultural i acional,i este cunoatere sau gndire n senssubiectiv, constnd ntr-o stare a minii sau acontiinei sau o dispoziie spre comportaresau reacii2. Prin comparaie (deigradualitatea planurilor este eviden),cunoaterea obiectivat, controlat critic,reprezint cunoatere sau gndire n sensobiectiv, constnd n probleme, teoriiiargumente ca atare3.

Cunoaterea elementar este spontan,supus deopotriv unor orizonturi de libertii constrngeri izvorte att din codul genetic,ct i din situaiile de via (individual i degrup); cunoaterea obiectivat esteintenionat, obinut prin activiti specialeispecializate, urmnd explicit anumite idealuride justee, autenticitatei punere la prob.Cunoaterea obiectivat este cunoatereaepistemic (tiinific).

La scar cultural i istoric se potidentifica sisteme de cunoatere mai mult saumai puin integrate, proprii unor comunitiumane determinate, sisteme n care suntstructurate diferite genuri de cunoatere(difereniate, sintetizatei ierarhizate mobil):

a) cunoatere perceptiv, de sim

comun; b) cunoatere tehnico-pragmatic; c)cunoatere tiinific; d) cunoatere filosofic;e) cunoatere mitic; f) cunoatere religioas;g) cunoatere artistic.

Totodat, tuturor formelor de contiin i ideologiilor (coercitive sau non-coercitive) lise asociaz momente i coeficieni decunoatere specific. Apoi, n cadrul genurilorde cunoatere, pot fi identificate formele decunoatere:

a) empiric - teoretic; b) pozitiv -

speculativ; c) intuitiv - reflexiv;e)reprezentativ-simbolic; f) individual -

and existential feature of man cannot be denied.This judgement becomes indicative: a certainmoment of knowledge is involved in anyhuman activity and commitment. At the sametime, it becomes critical and selective: wecannot put at the same level an elementary,intrinsic knowledge (human ontis attribute),found in the human genetic code, in theexistential project of the human being (as acomponent of life), with an objective, critical,reflexive knowledge. The elementaryknowledge represents the universality andidentity of the human being as bio-psychic being, socio-cultural and action being, and it isknowledge or thought in subjective meaning,consisting of a state of mind or consciousness ora disposition towards behaviour or reactions17.By comparison (although the gradualness of the plans is obvious), the objective knowledge,critically controlled, represents knowledge orthought in objective meaning, consisting of problems, theories and arguments as such18.

Elementary knowledge is spontaneous,subdued at the same time to some freedom andconstraints horizons appeared both from thegenetic code and the life situations (individualand group); objective knowledge is intentional,obtained through special and specializedactivities, explicitly following some justness,authenticity and probation ideals. Objectiveknowledge is the epistemic (scientific)knowledge.

At cultural and historical scale, we canidentify knowledge systems more or lessintegrated, proper to some human communities,systems where there are structured different

types of knowledge (differentiated, synthesized,and hierarchised):a) perceptive knowledge, of common

sense; b) technical and pragmatic knowledge c)scientific knowledge; d) philosophicalknowledge; e) mythical knowledge; f) religiousknowledge; g) artistic knowledge.

At the same time, all the forms ofconscience and ideologies (coercive or non-coercive) are associated with moments andcoefficients of specific knowledge. Then, within

the framework of knowledge types, thefollowing forms of knowledge may be


3/20


4/20



8

o cale regal: ea este un moment alcunoaterii umane supuse aciunii posibiluluiistoric. n demersul pe care-l propunem, att nsurprinderea corelaiilor dintre repereleconceptuale (cunoatere epistemic cultur -democraie), dar mai ales n dezvoltareasecvenelor de coninut privitoare lademocraia formal i democraia substanial,a rolului cunoaterii i culturii politice n progresul democraiei (dar i n evideniereaunor limite intrinseci teoriei-fantom ademocraiei) iter m asumpia c apreciereaunei concepii gnoseologice doar sub aspectulcoerenei i simplitii interne, al consecveneicu propriile ei premise teoretice imetodologice, este cu totul insuficient.

n disputa dintre epistemi doxa(paradoxul lui Taminaux) trebuieinut seamade presupoziiile premiselor, de consecinelemai ndeprtate ale dezvoltrii teorieidemocraiei, de contextele extragnoseologice(ontologice, psihoantropologice) pe care leangajeaz.

Tabloul contemporan al preocuprilori poziiilor epistemologice este unul extremde variat. O participare la nelegerea societiicunoaterii presupune o analiz sistematic privind:

marile transformri interne, de mod saustil de gndire produse ntiina modern iactual, dar mai ales analiza noului statutsocial-economic, culturali politic altiinei ncadrul societii informaionale;

noile metodei mijloace care permitefectuarea cercetrilor teoretice (logico-matematice, semantice, metateoretice)i

empirice (psihogenetice, psihosociologice,istorice, antropologice, cibernetice etc.),altdat inaccesibile;

tradiiile filosofice i culturale,curentele i colile tiinifice contemporane(empirismul logici filosofia analitic R.Carnap, C.G. Hempel; raionalismul critic K.R. Popper; fenomenologia Ed. Husserl;neoraionalismul G. Bachelard, F.Gonseth;epistemologia genetic J. Piaget; pragmatismul conceptual W.v.O. Quine;noua tehnologie atiinei Th.S. Kuhn, St.

epistemological prestige, even with a paradigmatic role.

Knowing the knowledge has only oneroyal way: it is a moment of humanknowledge below the historical possibility. Inour steps, both in surprising the the correlations between conceptual references (epistemicknowledge culture democracy), butespecially in developing the content sequencesregarding formal democracy and substantialdemocracy, the role of knowledge and politicalculture in the progress of democracy (but also inunderlining some intrinsic limitations of thephantom-theory of democracy) we issue theassumption that the appreciation of agnoseologic conception only under the aspect ofcoherence and internal simplicity, ofconsistency with its own theoretical andmethodological premises, is not enough

In the dispute between episteme andgray matter (Taminaux paradox) we have totake into consideration the farther consequencesof democracy theory development, the extra-gnoseologic contexts (ontological, psycho-anthropological) it engages.

The contemporary picture ofepistemological concerns and positions isextremely various. Participating inunderstanding the knowledge of societysupposes a systematic analysis regarding:

great internal transformations, regardingthought style or form produced in modernand current science, but especially theanalysis of the new social-economic,cultural and political status of sciencewithin informational society;

new methods and means allowing to carrytheoretical researches (logical andmathematic, semantic, meta-theoretical)and empirical (psycho-genetic, psycho-sociological, historical, anthropological,cybernetic etc.), which used to beinaccessible;Philosophical and cultural traditions,contemporary scientific trends and schools(logical empiricism and analytical philosophy R. Carnap, C.G. Hempel;critical rationalism K.R. Popper;


5/20



9

Toulmin; realismul tiinific M Bunge, H.Putnam contextualitatea adevrului R.Rorty.a.);

metodele, tehnicilei instrumentelecare confer cercetrilor epistemologici ungrad mai ridicat de pozitivitate, precum:analiza direct referitoare la problemeleepistemologice noi pe care le presupune practica de vrf a cercetrii tiinifice; analizaformalizant i reconstrucia logico-matematic att a teoriilortiinifice, cti aconceptelor epistemologice intuitive (teorie,model, explicaie, predicie, testare, adevretc.);

metodele istorico-critice i psihogenetice (care pun n eviden mecanismele de cretere a cunoateriii modulistoric n care au evoluati s-au succedat principalele ipoteze etc)5.

Natura pe care o studiaz tiinele azi,nu este o natur ante-uman; ea este deja prelucrat i valorizat cultural. Sistemele desemnificaii pot fi descifrate numai prin luarean consideraie a contextului, apelnd larezultatele cercetrilor din domeniul

antropologiei culturale, psihosociologiei,istoriei culturii, punnd accent pe cunoaterea psihicului social n procesul de refacere aorizontului de realitate a oamenilor. n acestcontext apeleaz Mircea Eliade la termenul deopacitate semantic care semnific faptul c orice document, chiar contemporan, estespiritual opac atta timp ct nu estedescifrat, integrndu-l ntr-un sistem desemnificaii: O unealt preistoric saucontemporan nu poate s releve dect

intenionalitatea sa tehnologic: tot ceea ce productorul sau posesorii ei au gndit, auimaginat, au sperat n relaie cu ea ne scap6.

ntr-o definiie ce-i exprim chintesenaconinutului, adevrul reprezint valoareacunoaterii. Modul de a fi al omului, condiiauman (Montaigne, Malraux), fiin ntrumisteri pentru revelare (Lucian Blaga) reprezint fundamentele universuluiaxiologic uman. Aa cum judecile de valoarenu se identific cu judecile despre valoare, lafel universul axiologic nu se rezum launiversul ontic, nici la cel gnoseologic.i

phenomenology Ed. Husserl; neo-rationalism G. Bachelard, F.Gonseth;genetic epistemology J. Piaget;conceptual pragmatism W.v.O. Quine;the new technology of science Th.S.Kuhn, St. Toulmin; scientific realism M Bunge, H. Putnam the contextuality oftruth R. Rorty.a.);Methods, techniques, and instrumentsgranting the epistemological researchers ahigher degree of positivity, like: a directanalysis regarding epistemological problems that the top practice of scientificresearch supposes; formalising analysis andlogical mathematic reconstruction ofscientific theories, as well as of intuitiveepistemological concepts (theory, model,explanation, prediction, testing, truth etc.);Historical-critic and psycho-geneticmethods (that underline the growthmechanisms of knowledge and thehistorical way in which they have evolvedand succeeded their main hypothesesetc)20.

The nature studied by sciences

nowadays, is not an anti-human nature; it isalready processed and culturally valued.Significations systems may be decrypted only by taking into consideration the context, callingthe results of the researchers in the field ofcultural anthropology, psycho-sociology, thehistory of culture, placing the accent onknowing the social psychic in the process ofrebuilding peoples reality horizon. In thiscontext, Mircea Eliade uses the term ofsemantic opacity which means that any

document, even contemporary ones, isspiritually opaque as long as it is notdecrypted, by integrating it in a system ofsignifications: A prehistoric or contemporarytool only reveals its technological intentionality:everything its producer or owners have thought,have imagined, have hoped related to it isunknown to us21.

In a definition expressing the contentessence, truth represents the value ofknowledge. Mans way of being, human nature,(Montaigne, Malraux), mysterious being andfor revelation (Lucian Blaga) is the grounds


6/20



10

aceasta, n primul rnd, pentru c valorile suntimanente i transcendente att obiectelorvalorizate, cti subiectelor valorizatoare. Estede mare interes ideea exprimat de un personajshakespearean n Trolius i Cresida:valoarea nu st n bunul nostru plac;valoarea ei-n ceea ce prin sine-i preios i nacela care preuiete. Altfel spus, valoarea seconstituie numai atunci cndi acolo undeceva (n principiu orice) prezint pentru cineva(obligatoriu, fiina capabil s aprecieze) oimportan mai mare sau mai mic, implicndo relaie specific ntre subiecti obiect.

O definiie posibil: Valoarea este orelaie de apreciere a unor bunuri sau creaii, nvirtutea corespondenei dintre nsuirile lor inzuinele omului.

Pe cale de consecin, se poate asumac valoarea nu este nici atribut intrinsec alunor obiecte (materiale sau ideale), nici atributintrinsec al subiectului, ci un mod specific deraportare preferenial i deziderativ asubiectului fa de obiect, pe baza unor criteriisociale7.

Sistemul de valori care confer identitate structural unei comuniti estedefinit ca sintez a componentelor culturaleide civilizaie admise ca legitime la nivelcomunitar8. n temeiul interacionalismuluisimbolic, cultura este un sistem de simboluricolective. Trecnd peste multitudineadefiniiilor date culturii, consider c definiialui J. Plano este una cuprinztoare iedificatoare pentru studiul de fa: Culturareprezint ansamblul de modelecomportamentale nsuite i transmise social,

specifice unei societi. Ca element definitoriual unui grup naional, ea se dezvolt i se pstreaz prin nvare, limb, cunoatere,folclor, credin, obiceiuri, tradiii, instituii,att oficiale, cti neoficiale. Pe scurt, printotalitatea experienei sociale. ntr-o esen maxim, avnd n vedere inclusiv componentasa politic, se poate spune c un sistem politiceste modelat de factorii culturali, iar sistemul politic, la rndul lui, poate provoca modificrin plan cultural, influennd alte modele

comportamentale ale societii. Aici se impuneo alt remarc, anume aceea c existena unor

of the human axiological universe. Just likevalue judgements do not identify themselveswith judgements about value, in the same waythey do not resume themselves to onticuniverse, not to the gnoseological one. Thishappens firstly because values are immanentand transcendent to valued objects and tovalorising subjects. It is of great interest the ideaexpressed by a Shakespearian character inTroilus and Cressida: value dwells not in particular ; It holds his estimate and dignity /As well wherein 'tis precious of itself /As in the prizer. To put it in other words, values is whenand where something ( mainly anything) hasless or more significance for someone (a human being capable of appreciation, compulsorily),involving a specific relation between the subjectand the object.

A possible definition: Value is anappreciation relation of some goods orcreations, in virtue of their correspondence between their features and mans hopes.

Consequently, we may assume thatvalue is not an intrinsic attribute of some objects(either material or ideal), not an intrinsicattribute of the subject, but a specific way of preferential and desiderative report of thesubject towards the object based on socialcriteria22.

The system of values that offersstructural identity to a community is defined asa synthesis of cultural and civilisationcomponents admitted as legitimate atcommunitarian level23. Based on the symbolicinteractions, culture is a system of collectivesymbols. Passing over the multitude of

definitions given to culture, I believe thatJ.Planos is conclusive and edifying for ourstudy: Culture is the assembly of behaviour patterns acquired and socially transmitted,specific to one society.As a defining element of a national group, itdevelops and preserves by studying, language,knowledge, folklore, faith, habits, traditions,institutions, both official and not official. Inshort, through the totality of social experience.In a maximum essence, taking into

consideration its political component also, wemay say that a political system is modelled by


7/20



11

subculturi sau a unor contra-culturi,depistabile prin alienarea unor grupuriimportante de grupul cultural dominant, pot produce ostiliti i tensiuni care, la rndul lor, pot avea ca rezultat violena, represiuneai, nultim instan, revoluia sau r zboiul civil.Iat o tez de care voi ine cont n analizademocraiei. Nivelul (subsistemul) culturii, alcontiinei sociale, al ideologieii vieiispirituale coexist n sistemul social mpreun cu nivelul (subsistemul) raporturilor societateuman-natur ; nivelul (subsistemul)structurilor socialei al relaiilor specifice;nivelul (subsistemul) vieii comunitare.

Apoi, n subsistemul culturii politicesunt cuprinse:

ideile, concepiile, formele decontiin specific politic, moral,filosofic, artistic, juridic, religioas;reprezentrile, mentalitile, opiniile,strile de spirit, atitudinile.Succint, reprezentnd sfera vieii

spirituale a individului, condiia culturii areun dublu sens: ea condiioneaz i estecondiionat de mediul social.

Intereseaz impactul ei asupra condiieisistemului politic; valorile, aspiraiile produccomportamente reprezentative la nivelindividual, grupal, naional, internaional(ndeosebi prin globalizare). Cultura creeaz tradiie, formeaz sisteme autonome decunotine, modeleaz structura unor instituii(creeaz o alt totalitate a experieneisociale)9.

Istoria reprezint martorul de controlasupra valorilor i utilitilor diferitelor

societi politice. Aceast judecat poate fiemis att pentru regimurile democratice, cti pentru cele non-democratice, ndeosebi n privina legitimitii i legitimrii lor.

Democraia este forma politic ce i-adovedit n timpuri ndelungate, o marecapacitate de nvare i un imens potenial detransformare10; ea s-a manifestat ca idee aguvernrii de ctre cei muli, transformndviaa politic aproape n aceeai perioad attn Atena (i alte orae state greceti), ctin statul cetate Roma11. Muli autori auconsiderat c exclamaia lui Giovani Sartori:

cultural factors and political system, in its turn,can cause alterations at cultural level,influencing other behaviour patterns of thesociety. This requires another observation,namely that the existence of subcultures orcounter-cultures, that may be depicted byalienating important groups from the dominantcultural group, can cause ostilites and tensionsthat, in their turn, may result into violence,repression and last revolution or civil war. Thisis a thesis that I shall take into consideration inanalyzing democracy. The level (subsystem) ofculture, social consciousness, ideology andspiritual life work together within the socialsystem together with the level (subsystem) ofthe reports between human society nature; thelevel (subsystem) of social structures andspecific relations; the level (subsystem) ofcommunitarian life.

Then, in the system of political culture,there are included:

Ideas, conceptions, specific conscienceforms political, moral, philosophical,artistic, juridical, religious;Representations, mentalities, opinions,

states of spirit, attitudes.Briefly, representing the individualspiritual sphere, the condition of culture has adouble meaning: it conditions and it isconditioned by the social environment.

We are interested on its impact upon thecondition of the political system; values,aspirations cause representatives behaviours atindividual, group, national, international level(especially through globalization). Culturecreates tradition, forms autonomous knowledge

systems, models the structure of institutions(creates another tonality of the socialexperience)24.

History is the control witness uponvalues and utilities of different politicalsocieties. This judgement may be issued bothfor democratic systems, and for non-democratic systems, especially regarding theirlegitimacy and legitimating.

Democracy is the political form thathas proven in time a great capacity of learningand a great potential of transformation25; it hasdeveloped as an idea of government by the


8/20



12

Democraie! Numele propus al unui lucrucare nu exist, i-ar fi cuprins opera.

n opinia mea12, aceast exclamaie nueste nici pe departe compromitoare ci,dimpotriv, atrage atenia unei multitudini de probleme pe care le ridic nsui conceptul dedemocraie din perspectiva unei insuficiene(dac nu chiar a unei crize) epistemice ndomeniu. Diferena concept iniial conceptactual, concept actual realitate factual estedeopotriv, una istoric, dar i semantic tocmai prin extensia referenialului. Abordrileregimurilor democratice sunt preocupate attde geneza, evoluia i funcionarea acestui tipde regim, dari de posibilele evoluii n viitor;n acelai timp, intensitatea i constanadezbaterilor nu pot face abstracie de aspecteleistorice comunei nici de elementele specificeale regimurilor democratice. Ceea cenelegem noi prin democraie nu este ceea cenelegea un atenian din timpul lui Pericle scrie R. Dahl. Noiuni greceti, romane,medievalei renascentiste se mbin n noiunidin secole mai apropiate, pentru a produce unamestec adesea extrem de incontient de teoriei metode13. Tocmai de aceea, o definiieconsistent a democraiei este dificil, dartiina politic azi ia n considerare tot maimult definiia lui Schumpeter: metodademocratic este acea ordine instituional princare se ajunge la decizii politice, ordine n careunele persoane obin dreptul de a decide, nurma unei nfruntri concureniale pentruobinerea votului popular14. Definiia are imerite ilustrarea caracterului concurenial iedificator al alegerilor, includerea principiului

reaciilor prevzute (Friedrich), dar estei prea procedural, ceea ce unilateralizeaz coninutul conceptului. Se poate constata c democraia neleas ca metod, ca ordineinstituional prin care se ajunge la decizii politice, este explicitat prin rangul de mijloc(n sens kantian, prin scopuri relative,corespunztoare imperativelor ipotetice). Dardemocraia este produs (regim politic)i proces prin care realul (ontisul social)nglobeaz gradual dezideratul (neles aici i

ca posibil virtual). Originat n sistemul politic(ca orice regim politic), regimul democratic

people, transforming the political life almost atthe same time in Athens (and other citiesGreek states), as well as in the castle state Rome26. Many authors have considered thatGiovani Sartoris exclamation: Democracy!The name for a thing which does not exist,included its work.

In my opinion27, this exclamation is notcompromising, but on the contrary, it draws theattention of many problems of the concept ofdemocracy itself from the view of an epistemiclack (or even a crisis) in the field. Thedifference between the initial concept currentconcept actual reality is both historical andsemantic through the extension of thereferential. The approaches of democraticsystems are concerned both with the genesis,evolution and working of this type of system, aswell as with its possible evolutions in the future;at the same time, the intensity and constancy ofdebates cannot exclude common historicalaspects or the specific elements of democraticsystems. What we understand by democracy isnot what an Athenian from Pericles time usedto understand says R. Dahl. Greek, Roman,Medieval, and Renaissance notions combinefrom more recent centuries, to produce amixture of theory and methods which issometimes unconscious28. This is why, aconsistent definition of democracy is difficult, but political science today takes intoconsideration Schumpeters definition more andmore: democratic method is thatinstitutional order for reaching to politicaldecisions, orders where people get the right todecide, after a concurrent confrontation for

getting popular vote29

. This definition hascredits illustrating the concurrent and edifyingcharacter of elections, including the principle of predicted reactions (Friedrich), but at the sametime it is also too procedural, which makes theconcept content too unilateral. We can establishthat democracy understood as method, asinstitutional order for reaching politicaldecisions, is explained through the middle rank(in Kants meaning, through relative purposes,corresponding to hypothetical imperatives). But

democracy is a product (political system) and process through which reality (social ontis0


9/20


10/20



14

suficiente spre a indica justificareailegitimitatea regimurilor democraticecomparativ cu cele non-democratice. Maimult, judecile normative nu se pot substitui judecilor obiective. R spunsul la aceste provocri nu poate fi formulat dect prin punerea n discuie a conceptelor dedemocraie formal i democraie substanial.

2. Democra ia formal i democra iasubstan ial

Este tiut c anticii nu tratau politiculca pe un obiect ce revendic o metodspecific reprezentat din tiinele naturii, ci lconsiderau un regim (politeia) ce confer societii semnificaiile sale centrale,punndu-i n ordine instituiile i regulile,modelnd moravurilei stilul de via almembrilor si15.

n concepia anticilor, politiculreprezenta concomitent:

un mod de organizare a Cetii;un mod de via pentru cei din CetateAici i are sorginte distincia ntre

democraia formal i democraia substanial,dar i coexistena acestora. Astfel, dac democraia este redus doar la realizareamodelelor de organizare a Cetii, atunci eaeste formal; dac dimpotriv, politicul esteabordat concomitent ca mod de organizare aCetii i ca mod de via pentru cei dinCetate, democraia este formal i substanial.

Regimurile democratice, ca orice tip deregim politic, conin tensiuni imanente,tensiuni manifestate ndeosebi n planul

ncercrilor de modernizare instituional,urmare a nemulumirilor fa de funcionarearegimului existent (limitele regimuluidemocratic) raportate la modul dorit deorganizare a Cetii. Aceste limite dovedescmeninerea tensiunilor ntre democraiaformal, bazat pe elaborareai respectarearegulilor i procedurilor (inclusiv peconstrucia instituional) i democraiasubstanial, care are ca finalitate rezultatele procedurilor formale n privina bunstriicetenilor.Democraia formal este condiia sine

axiom, accepting the extension of the political participation sphere and the idea of voteuniversality, pluralism and compromise, positive contamination within the international plan are not enough arguments to indicate the justification and legitimacy of democraticsystems in comparison to non-democratic ones.Moreover, normative judgements cannotreplace objective judgements. The answer tothese challenges cannot be formulates unlessdiscussing the problems of formal democracyand substantial democracy.

2. Formal democracy and substantialdemocracy

It is known that Ancient people did nottreat politics as an object claiming a specificmethod represented by nature sciences, butlooked at it as a system (politeia) offering thesociety its central meanings, putting itsinstitutions and rules in order, modelling theneeds and lifestyle of its members30.

In the Ancient peoples view, politicswas at the same time:

A way of organizing the town;A way of life for people inside the townThis originates the distinction between

formal democracy and substantial democracy , but their coexistence also. Therefore, ifdemocracy is reduced to developing the formsof organizing the Town, then it is formal; if, onthe contrary, politics is approaches at the sametime as a form of organizing the Town and wayof life for people inside the Town, democracy isformal and substantial.

Democratic systems, like any type of political system, include immanent tensions,appeared especially in the plan of institutionalmodernization trials, due to complaints aboutthe existent system (the limitations of thedemocratic system) reported to the desired wayof organizing the Town. These limitations provethe persistence of the tensions between formaldemocracy, based on elaboration andcompliance with the rules and procedures(including on institutional construction) andsubstantial democracy which has the finality offormal procedures results regarding citizens


11/20



15

qua non (dar insuficient) a democraieisubstaniale, ca democraie in actu (mod devia); prima este mijlocul de atingereirealizare a condiiei umane doritei ateptate,iar cea de-a doua exprim msura n carecadrul instituional-normativ elaborat,construiti aplicat transform condiia uman,adic modul de via pentru cei din Cetate.Ori, cum societile democratice formalizatesunt prin natura lor plurale (coninnd chiarcomuniti plurale), creeaz implicit iimplacabil nu doar poliarhii, cii ierarhii(natural-obiective, dar mai grav, de tipoligarhic). Ateptrile, dorinele sestructureaz, la rndul lor n:

a) opinii subiectual - verosimile (nivelde via individual acceptat / respins /contestat);

b) percepii ale grupurilor,comunitilor obiectivate opinia public (nivel de via acceptat / contestat);

c) forme de contiin elaborate (teorii,doctrine, ideologii), referitoare la capacitateademocraiei formale n a transforma condiiauman dintr-o comunitate (evaluarea obiectiv a progresului/stagnrii/regresului nivelului devia funcie de democraia formal). i dinacest punct de vedere, conduita poate fi justificativ / contestatoare.

Toate cele trei forme de structurare aateptrilor sunt comparative (fie pe intervalede timp, fie, atunci cnd regimuriledemocratice succed regimurilor non-democratice, comparaiile sunt realizate prin prisma condiiei umane), iar indicatoriiutilizai vizeaz nivelul de via aa cum este

el perceput (individual sau la nivelul unorgrupuri) sau cum rezult din analizelefundamentate tiinific. Impactulcontientizrii rezultatelor raportriiateptrilor la mpliniri se evideniaz ncomportamente (la vot, la aciuni de susineresau contestare comportamente active sauabinere, pasivitate, absenteism comportamente pasive).

welfare.Formal democracy is the sine qua non

condition (but not enough) for substantialdemocracy as in actu democracy (way of life);the first one is the way to reach and achieve thedesired and expected human condition, and thesecond one expresses the extent to which theelaborated, built and enforced institutional andnormative background transforms humancondition, meaning the way of life for people inthe Town. And, knowing the fact thatformalized democratic societies are plural bynature (including even plural communities),they implicitly and implacably create not just poliarchies but hierarchies also (natural objective, and more seriously, oligarchic typeones). Expectations, desires are structured intheir turn into:

a) subjectual credible opinions(accepted / rejected / contested individuallifestyle);

b) perceptions of groups, objectivedcommunities public opinion (accepted /contested lifestyle);

c) elaborated forms of conscience(theories, doctrines, ideologies), regarding thecapacity of formal democracy to transformhuman condition from a community (objectiveassessment of progress/ stagnation/ regress oflifestyle in accordance with formal democracy).From this point of view, conduct may be justifying / contesting.

All its three forms of structuring theexpectations are comparative (either on time periods, either, when democratic systemssucceed to non-democratic systems,

comparisons are made through the view ofhuman condition), and indicators used focus onthe lifestyle as it is perceived (individually or atthe level of some groups) as resulting fromscientifically grounded analyses. The impact of being aware of the results of expectationsreporting to achievements is underlined in behaviours (to vote, support or contestationactions active behaviours refrain, passivity,absence passive behaviours).


12/20



16

0(0%) 0,25(25%) 0,5(50%) 0,75(75%) 1(100%)

Realiz ri /Achievements

Atept ri /Expectations

POSIBILIT I (BAROMETRU REALIZ RI - A TEPT RI) /POSSIBILITIES (ACHIEVEMENTS EXPECTATIONS BAROMETER)

Cazul I. Situa ii irealizabile 1.1. 0 a tept ri 1.2. 1 a tept ri i 1

realiz ri (0 %deficit derealiz ri), situa ieideal

Cazul II. Situa ii posibil derealizat pentru 1 a tept ri

2.1. Realiz ri cu valori:(0,751) (0,25 deficit derealiz ri)

Case I. Achievable cases1.1. 0 expectations1.2. 1 expectations and 1

achievements (0 %lack ofachievements), idealcase

Case II. Achievable cases for 1expectations

2.1. Achievements withvalues: (0,751) (0,25 lackof achievements)

0(0%) 0,5(50%) 0,75(75%) 1(100%)Realiz ri /Achievements


Comportament activ / Active behaviourSusinere-contestare / Support-contestationJustificare statistic / Statistically justificationPublicul, eterogen ca medie statistic, susine regimul. /People, eterogeneous as statistic mean, support the system


13/20



17

2.2. Realiz ri cu valori: (0,50,75) (0,5 deficit de realiz ri) / Achievementswith values: (0,50,75) (0,5 lack of achievements)

2.3. Realiz ri cu valori: (0,250,5) (0,75 deficit de realiz ri) / Achievementswith values: (0,250,5) (0,75 lack of achievements)

2.4. Realiz ri cu valori: (00,25) ( 1 deficit de realiz ri) / Achievementswith values: (00,25) ( 1 lack of achievements)

0(0%) 0,25(25%) 0,5(50%) 0,75(75%) 1(100%)


Atept ri /Ex ectations

Comportament activ / Active behaviourSusinere-contestare / Support-contestationJustificare rezervat / Reserved ustification

0(0%) 0,25(25%) 0,5(50%) 0,75(75%) 1(100%)


Atept ri /Ex ectations

Comportament activ / Active behaviourPredominant statistic-contestare / Mainly statistic contestationComportament pasiv / Passive behaviourAteptare / Wainting

0(0%) 0,25(25%) 0,5(50%) 0,75(75%) 1(100%)Realiz ri /Achievements



14/20



18

3. Cunoa terea i progresuldemocra iei (democra ia caprodus i proces)

Prin adoptarea acestei asumpii(identificarea cadrului firesc al democraiei nstatul naiune - n.n.) scrie R. Dahl, ceea demulte ori nu se recunoate, este ct de profund a afectat limitelei posibilitiledemocraiei trecerea istoriei de la statul-cetatela statul-naiune. Transformarea este att de profund nct, dac un cetean atenian dinsecolul al V-lea ar aprea brusc n mijloculnostru (fiind atenian, ar trebui s fie neaprat brbat), probabil ar considera c ceea cenumim noi democraie este ceva cu totulstr in, neatr gtor i nedemocratic. Unuiatenian din vremea lui Pericle, democraianoastr i s-ar prea departe de a fidemocraie, n primul rnd din cauzaconsecinelor asupra vieii politice i ainstituiilor politice, ale trecerii de la nivelul

stat-cetate, mai intimi mai participativ, lagiganticele forme de guvernmnt, maiimpersonalei mai indirecte, din ziua de azi. R. Dahl, Democraia i criticii ei, Iai,Institutul European, 2002.

Atribuirea calificativului dedemocratic pentru un regim depinde de unsistem de condiii, ntre care roluldeterminant este deinut de: caracterulnerestrictiv al participrii electorale;capacitatea cetenilor de a-i exercita liber

activitile considerate fundamentale pentruorganizarea votului; posibilitatea exercitrii

3. Knowledge and progress ofdemocracy (democracy asproduct and process)

By adopting this assumption(identifying the natural framework ofdemocracy in nation state - n.n.) says R.Dahl, which is not admitted very often, ishow profoundly the passing from town-stateto nation-state has affected the limitations and possibilities of democracy. Thetransformation is so profound that, if anAthenian citizen from the 5th centuryappeared among us suddenly (as an Athenian,he must be a man), he would probably thinkthat we think as democracy is somethingcompletely strange, unattractive and non-democratic. An Athenian from Pericles timeswould think of our democracy as far fromdemocracy, firstly because of theconsequences upon the political life and political institutions, of passing from a town-

state, more intimate and participating, tot hegigantic forms of government, moreimpersonal and more indirect. R. Dahl,Democracy and its Critics, Iai, EuropeanInstitute, 2002.

Giving the attribute of democratic to asystem depends on certain conditions, amongwhich the determining role is held by: thenon-restrictive character of electoral participation, the citizens ability to freelyexercise their activities considered

fundamental for the vote organization; the possibility to exercise the rights considered

Comportament activ / Active behaviourContestare / Contestation

Comportament pasiv / Passive behaviour Neimplicare / Non-involvement

Regimul democratic pus sub semnul ntrebrii (posibileviolene, revoluii, r zboaie civile). / Democratic systemunder the sign of question (possible violences,revolutions, civil wars posibile).


15/20



19

drepturilor considerate indispensabile pentruviaa democratic (adunri, expunere, pres).La aceste condiii se adaug cele formulate deR. Dahl:

I. A formula preferine; II. A-iexprima preferinele; III. A-i vedea propriile preferine cntrite n mod egal n actul deguvernare31.

Se desprind:A. coordonata istoric a

democraiei (democratizarea)B. cele dou dimensiuni ale

democratizriia. dimensiunea contestrii n

relaia cu autoritile b. dimensiunea participrii

influenteA. Coordonata istoric a democra iei(democratizarea)

indispensable for democratic life (meetings,exhibition, press). These conditions arecompleted by those formulated by R. Dahl:

I. Formulating preferences; II.Expressing preferences; III. Seeing its own preferences equally weighed within thegovernment act32.

The following appear:A. The historical coordinate of

democracy (democratization)B. The two sides of

democratizationa. The side of contesting in the

relation with the authoritiesThe size of influent participation

A. The historical side of democracy(democratization)

NOT :1. Transformrile (democratice) adaptri(conceptuale) conotaii(noi), 2. Lrgirea sferei modelului (de la

NOTE:1. Transformations (democratic) ada

(conceptual) connotations (new),2. Enlarging the pattern sphere (from

A. TRANFORM RIDEMOCRATICE

IMatricea

(persistent )a

miculuistat-cetate)

II

Statulna iune

III

Uniuni(confeder

a ii)transna io

nale

Participaredirect

laautoguvern

are

DemosKratia

Sistem deinstitu ii

absolut noi

Complexul deinstitu ii

=Democra ie

Mecanisme irela ii

institu ionaletransna ional

e

Transferul desuveranitate

+Rela ii

transna ionale=democra ie

A. DEMOCRATICTRANSFORMATIONS

IPersistent matrix(of thesmalltown-state)

II

Nationstate

III

Unions(transnational

confederations)

Directparticipatio

n to self-governmen

t

DemosKratia

Absolutelynew

system of

institutions

Complex ofinstitutions

=Democracy

Institutionaland

transnationalmechanisms

and relations

Transfer ofsovereignty

+Transnationa

l relations=democrac


16/20



20

democraia participativ) democraia (reprezentativ) transfer de legitimitate asupraorganismelor internaionale,

3. Caracterul inclusivi exclusiv al participrii,4. Fecunda contaminare (pozitiv sau

negativ) a democratizrii (ndeosebin era globalizrii).

B. Dimensiunile democratiz rii (lanivelul statului - na iune)

participating democracy) democracy (representative) transfer of legitimacy uponinternational organisms,

3. Inclusive and exclusive character of participation,4. Profitable contamination (positive or

negative) of democratization(especially in globalization age).

B. Sizes of democratization (at thelevel of nation-state)

NOT: Procesul nu este ireversibil.

Explicaiile sunt susinute de fazeledemocratizrii.

NOTE: The process is not

irreversible. Explanations are supported bythe democratization phases.

Dimensiunea

contest rii (liberaliz

are)

L rgireasferei

oportunit ilor (de

contestare)

De lahegemonii nchise,

laoligarhii

concuren iale

Contestation size (liberaliz

ation)

Enlargingthe

opportunities sphere(contestati

on)

Fromclosed

hegemon

ies toconcurential

oligarchies

Dimensiunea

particip

rii(cuprind

L rgireaactivit ilor

(departicipare;

orientarespre regimuricuprinz toar

e, care nusunt

obligatoriuconcuren iale

)

Putereacontinu

s fiecontrolat

de c treelitele

dominante, de i

sunt

regimuri n careto i au

posibilitatea de a

participa

The sizeof

particip

ation(inclusi

Enlargingactivities

(participation; broadsystems

orientation,which are

notcompulsorilyconcurential)

Powercontinues

to becontrolled

bydominatin

g elites,althoughthere aresystems

whereeverybody has theopportuni

ty toparticipat

e

Liberalizarea +cuprinderea=democratizareaRegimuri poliarhice

(niciun grup nu este n m sur de a prelua puterea;puterea este divizat )

Democra ia laintrare

Democra ia laie ire

Controlulresponsabiliz rii

guvernan ilor

Liberaliztion +inclusion=democratizationPoliarchic systems

(no group can take over the power; power isdivided)

Democracy atentry

Democracy at exit

Controllin thegovernors

res onsibilit


17/20



21

Evoluia de la regimuri nedemocratice

ctre regimurile democratice (DankwartRustow).a) Condiia preliminar : acordul general al participanilor cu privire la apartenena la ocomunitatea politic

lupta ntre grupuri de elite b) Lupta dintre grupurile de elite nu sefinalizeaz prin victoria decisiv a unuigrup asupra celorlalte, ci printr-uncompromis. Compromisul reprezint deopotriv refuz (delimitarea elitelor deinteresul de grup)i acceptare (tolerareareciproc ntr-o convieuire ce permitedeclanarea competiiei, dar i acordul privind intrarea n competiie).

The evolution from non-democraticsystems to democratic systems (DankwartRustow).a) Preliminary condition: participantsgeneral consent regarding their belonging tothe political community

fight between groups of elites b) The fight between groups of elites is notfinished through the decisive victory of agroup upon the others, but through acompromise. Compromise is at the samerefusal (marking the elites of group interest)and acceptance (reciprocal tolerance withinliving together which allows to initiatecompetition, but also the approval forentering to competition).

NOT: 1) Cele trei valuri aledemocratizrii ilustreaz fluxul i refluxulregimurilor democratice33.

2) Caracterul ireversibil (saureversibil) al democratizrii depinde defactori ce caracterizeaz democraia formal (construcia instituional, autoritatea ilegitimitatea instituiilor democraiei, pluralismul dezvoltat, pluripartidismul realifuncional, cultura politic, legiferareadurabil, ordinea politic intern iinternaional stabil, accentuarea efectuluide domino al proceselor de democratizare)ct i mai ales democraia substanial (eradicarea sr ciei, ritmul reformeloreconomice i politice, statutul social al

individului, puterea exemplului modeluluidemocratic, sl birea i limitarea presiunii

NOTE:1) The three waves of democratizationillustrate the flow and backflow ofdemocratic systems35.

2) The irreversible (or reversible)character of democratization depends onfactors characterizing formal democracy(institutional construction, authority andlegitimacy of democracy institutions,developed pluralism, real and functional pluripartidism, political culture, sustainablecertification, stable internal and international political order, focusing on the domino effectof democratization processes) and especiallysubstantially democracy (finishing poverty,the rhythm of economic and political reforms,individual social status, the power of example

of the democratic pattern, weakening andlimiting the pressure of backflow by limiting

HABITATION(se au n vedereifactoriicontextuali:memoria istoric a democraiilorabandonate,contaminarea pozitiv

sau

negativ,existena sauabsena pieeiconcureniale,etc.)

ACOMODAREA CU

REGULILE,NORMELE I

PROCEDURILEDEMOCRATIC

E(pot fi i riscuri,generatoare decrize, ce potconduce lacderearegimurilordemocratice

Cele treivaluri aledemocratizrii (S.

Huntington)

HABITATION(contextual factorsare taken intoconsideration:historical memoryof abandoneddemocracies, positive or negativecontamination,existance orabsence ofcompetitionalmarket

The threewaves of

democratization (S.

Huntington)

GETTINGFAMILIAR WITH

DEMOCRATICRULES,

REGULATIONSAND

PROCEDURES(there may be risks,causing crisis thatmay lead to the fall ofdemocratic systems


18/20



22

refluxului prin limitarea consecinelorregimurilor autoritare).

Factori entropiciTeza lui Seymour Martin Lipset:

sistemele economice care reuesc s creezeis menin un regim democratic sunt cele maidezvoltate. (indicatori: venit/locuitor; grad deinstrucie; procentul de urbanizare; nivelul deindustrializare; accesul la mijloacele decomunicare; grad de civilizaie).

Conform tezei, o concluzie eronat,care ar conduce la urmtoarea legesociologic:

Toate sistemele socio-economice caredep esc anumite trepte de industrializare,alfabetizare, urbanizare i venit/locuitor vorda na tere unor regimuri democratice.

Aceast asumpie este contrazis derealitatea factual istoric.

Aceast tez trebuie reformulat,innd cont de urmtoarele aspecte:

- n afirmarea democraiei nu sunt prioritare caracteristicile agregate alesistemului socio-economic, ci absenadezechilibrelori inegalitilor semnificativedintre diferite grupuri sociale; afirmarea unuiregim democratic se realizeaz atunci cndinegalitile suntinute sub controli se reducdezechilibrele;

- prioritar nu este nivelul dedezvoltare socio-economic, ci modalitile prin care acesta a fost realizat; aceasta, maiales n msura n care tentativele de realizare pot conduce la metode autoritarei ladestabilizarea sistemului. Important esteaici de subliniat, distincia lui Huntington

ntre modernitatei modernizare (lund ncalcul diferenele dintre progresul lenti ratanalt, for at a modernizrii).

Concluzie: eforturile suportate n timpndelungat n susinerea unei rate nalte amodernizrii, conduc implacabil lainstabilitatea puterii politicei regimuluidemocratic, f cndu-se posibil pr buirealor. Rata nalt a modernizrii, susinut perioade ndelungate, submineaz democraiasubstanial34.

Se mai impune o concluzie general:conceptul de democraie, aa cum a fost el

the consequences of authoritative systems).Entropic factorsSeymour Martin Lipsets thesis:

economic systems that manage to create andmaintain a democratic system are the mostdeveloped ones. (indicators:income/inhabitant; training degree;urbanization percentage; level ofindustrialization; access to media; civilisationdegree).

According to the thesis, a wrongconclusion that would lead to the followingsociologic thesis:

All the social and economic systemsthat go beyond certain industrialization steps,alphabetization, and income/inhabitant will

give birth to democratic systems.This assumption is contradicted by the

factual-historical reality.This thesis has to be reformulated,

taking into consideration the followingaspects:

- in affirming democracy, aggregatefeatures of the social and economic systemare not prioritary, but the absence ofsignificant unbalances and inequalities between different social groups; theappearance of a democratic system isachieved when inequalities are kept undercontrol and unbalances are reduced;

- the social and economicdevelopment level is not of priority, but theways in which it has been achieved; thisespecially to the extent in which attempts ofachievement may lead to authoritativemethods and unbalance the system. It is

important to underline, Huntingtonsdistinction between modernity andmodernization (taking into consideration thedifferences between the slow progress andhigh, forced level of modernization).

Conclusion: efforts made forsupporting a high level of modernization for along time, implacably lead to the instabilityof political power and democratic system,making it possible for them to collapse. Thehigh level of modernization, supported for

long periods, undermines substantialdemocracy36.


19/20



23

elaborat i care a fundamentat teoriafantom a democraiei, se dovedete azi ncontextul societii cunoaterii inconsistenti ineficient. Trecerea de la teoria fantomla teoria tiinific a democraiei nu serealizeaz f r a se ine cont de r spunsuri lantrebri de tipul:

ce este poporul? din cine este constituit poporul? care sunt dimensiunile democraiei? de ce se amplific caracterul utopic al

idealului democratic? de ce democraia semnific:

o un grup distinct de instituii i practici politice;

o un sistem de drepturi;o o ordine social i economic;o un sistem ce asigur anumite

rezultate dezirabile;o un proces unic de luare a unor

decizii colegiale obligatoriietc.

A general conclusion is also required:the concept of democracy, as elaborated andgrounded the phantom theory of democracyis proved today in the context of knowledgesociety inconsistent and inefficient. Passingfrom the phantom theory to the scientifictheory of democracy is not achieved withouttaking into consideration answers of thetype:

What are the people? Who are the people made of? Which are the sizes of democracy? Why does the utopia character of

democratic ideal increase? Why does democracy means:

o A distinct group of institutionsand political practices;

o A system of rights;o A social and economic order;o A system providing certain

desirable results;o An unique process of taking

compulsory collegial decisionsetc.

1 Spre edificare n domeniul procesului de construcie a teoriei cunoaterii, a se vedea P.P. Negulescu, Scrieriinedite, I, Problema cunoaterii, Editura Academiei RSR, Bucureti, 1969.2 K.R. Popper Epistemologia f r subiect cunosctor, n Epistemologie. Orientri contemporane, EdituraPolitic, Bucureti, 1974, p. 72.3 Ibidem4 Vezi Filosofie, Editura Didactic i Pedagogic, 1985, p. 220i urm.5 Ibidem p 2266 Mircea Eliade, Istoria credinelor religioase, vol. I, Edituratiinific i Enciclopedic, Bucureti, 1981, p 57 L. Grnberg, Axiologiai condiia uman, Editura Politic, Bucureti, 1972, p 61-62; N. Rescher, Introductionto Value Theory, Prentice-Hall Inc; New Jersey, 1969, p 55; P. Andrei, Filosofia valorii, Editura Fundaiilor,Bucureti, 1945, p 23i urm; l. Lavelle, Trait des valeurs, vol. I, P.U.F. Paris, 1951, p 92-938 tefan Buzrnescu, Sociologia opiniei publice, Editura Didactic i Pedagogic, R.A., Bucureti, p. 289 A se vedea Adrian Gorun, Teorie politic, Presa universitar clujean, Cluj Napoca, 2002, p. 43-47; DumitruLepdatu, Procesei fenomene politice, Bucureti, Ed. Actami, 200, p. 59-66

10 Gianfranco Pasquino, Curs detiin politic, Institutul European, 2002, p. 30511 Adrian Gorun, Puterea politic i regimurile politice, Editura Bibliotheca, 2006, p. 128.12 Ibidem, p. 129-13013 Robert Dahl, Democraia i criticii ei, Iai, Institutul European, p. 1014 J.A.Schumpeter, Capitalisme, Socialisme and Democracy, New York, Harper & Row, 194215 A se vedea Jean Baudouin, Introducere n sociologia politic, Editura macord, Timioara, 1999, p. 89-9016 In order to clear about the process of the theory of knowledge, see P.P. Negulescu, New writings, I,The problem of knowledge, Academy Publisher RSR, Bucharest, 1969.17 K.R. Popper Epistemology without a known subject, in Epistemology. Contemporary orientations,Political Publisher, Bucharest, 1974, p. 72.18 Ibidem19

Vezi Filosofie, Editura Didactic i Pedagogic, 1985, p. 220i urm.


20/20



20 Ibidem p 22621 Mircea Eliade, Istoria credinelor religioase, vol. I, Edituratiinific i Enciclopedic, Bucureti,1981, p 522 L. Grnberg, Axiology and human nature, Political Publisher, Bucharest, 1972, p 61-62; N. Rescher,Introduction to Value Theory, Prentice-Hall Inc; New Jersey, 1969, p 55;P. Andrei, The Philosophy of Value, Foundations Publisher, Bucharest, 1945, p 23i urm; l. Lavelle, Trait desvaleurs, vol. I, P.U.F. Paris, 1951, p 92-9323 tefan Buzrnescu, The Sociology of Public Opinion, Didactic and Paedagogic Publisher, R.A.,Bucharest, p. 2824 See Adrian Gorun, Political Theory, Presa universitar clujean, Cluj Napoca, 2002, p. 43-47; DumitruLepdatu, Political Processes and Phenomena, Bucharest, Ed. Actami, 200, p. 59-6625 Gianfranco Pasquino, Political Science Course, European Institute, 2002, p. 30526 Adrian Gorun, Political Power and Political Systems, Bibliotheca Publisher, 2006, p. 128.27 Ibidem, p. 129-13028 Robert Dahl, Democracy and its Critics, Iai, European Institute, p. 1029 J.A.Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, New York, Harper & Row, 194230

See Jean Baudouin, Introduction in Political Sociology, Macord Publisher, Timioara, 1999, p. 89-9031 Vezi Adrian Gorun, op. cit., p. 134-13532 See Adrian Gorun, op. cit., p. 134-13533 A se vedea A. Gorun, op. Cit. p 148-15034 Vezi o analiz amnunit n A. Gorun, op. Cit. p. 152-16235 See A. Gorun, op. Cit. p 148-15036 See detailed analysis in A. Gorun, op. Cit. p. 152-162

cunoaştere – cultură Şi adrian gorun

Documents