Sociedade civil, Estado e autonomia: argumentos, contra-argumentos e avanços no debate

Abstract

Resumo: O cenário brasileiro das relações entre Estado e sociedade civil tem se reconfigurado ao longo das últimas três décadas, suscitando esforços da literatura especializada para diagnosticar tais mudanças mediante deslocamentos analíticos e revisões de pressupostos. Em diálogo com um diagnóstico recente de conjunto que recoloca algumas teses importantes na literatura e segundo o qual essa reconfiguração é uma passagem de um período histórico de autonomia plena dos atores sociais para um momento de interdependência com o Estado, o artigo desenvolve quatro contra-argumentos amparados em deslocamentos teórico-analíticos e metodológicos que, junto à extensa pesquisa empírica, marcam avanços no debate do país sobre as relações socioestatais. Os contra-argumentos partem do pressuposto da mútua constituição, ou codeterminação, entre Estado e sociedade civil e revisam criticamente os argumentos sobre a emergência tardia da sociedade civil no Brasil, seu nascimento sob o signo de uma não relação com o Estado e os partidos políticos, bem como sobre o advento da interdependência com o Estado no período pós-constituinte. No seu todo, o conjunto dos contra-argumentos mostra os ganhos analíticos de uma perspectiva centrada nas interações socioestatais e de uma compreensão relacional de autonomia tanto no plano da prática dos atores quanto no plano da teoria.Palavras-chave: interações socioestatais; Estado; sociedade civil; movimentos sociais; autonomia Abstract: The relationship between civil society and state has dramatically changed in Brazil along the last three decades. Civil society, social movements and participatory democracy literature have engaged in revising its underpinning assumptions in order to build a comprehensive diagnosis of such changes. This article presents a critical appraisal of the trends and theoretical innovations on the state-civil society contemporary Brazilian debate. It specifically examines a recent comprehensive diagnosis that updates some important conventional ideas about the Brazilian civil society. Such diagnosis describes and grasps the meaning of such changes as a historical shift between two moments: from an autonomous to an interdependent civil society vis-à-vis the state. We challenge such ideas from the standpoint of a relational and historical approach of state-civil society relation as mutually constitutive and drawing on an extensive literature review of both recent empirical studies on Brazilian civil society and sound grounded theory building diagnosis. We show that the ideas of the late birth of Brazilian civil society, the non relation between civil society, and political parties and the state during dictatorship, as well as the interdependence between them as a recent phenomena are conceptually and empirically flawed. Overall, we show the analytical benefits of an interactive and relational approach of state civil society interactions and autonomy.

Sociedade civil e inovação social na esfera pública: uma perspectiva pragmatista

“…The most productive authors have their affiliation in developed countries, especially the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and Spain. In Brazil, only three articles that address the country's reality were found, which are in Portuguese and are from the field of political science (Bauer, Lotta and Galvão, 2013;Almeida, 2014;Lavalle and Szwago, 2015). None of them directly address the issue of social innovation and all refer to experiences of civil society participation in the public sphere.…”

Multi-level governance in federal contexts: the Social Assistance Policy in the City of São Paulo

“…In our analysis, we move beyond normative perspectives and follow Lavalle and Szwako's (2015) claim that the state and civil society are 'mutually built', and thus have a relationship of co-determination.…”

Participation on the Edge: Prior Consultation and Extractivism in Latin America

“…Yet, the gap between the discourse of national and international indigenous organizations and the goals held by indigenous communities themselves at the local level help explain this dichotomy. Assuming that there is a close relationship between what representatives of civil society organizations say and what the broader citizenry actually wants is a frequent mistake within the literature on participatory institutions (for critical approaches, see: Gurza Lavalle and Szwako 2015;Zaremberg, Guarneros-Meza, and Gurza Lavalle 2017). The relationship between representatives and those represented is complex and indeed paradoxical (Pitkin 1967;.…”