Agemir Bavaresco

New settings for communication are being built, having, at one side, great corporations of television, radio, press and on line media, and at the other side the role of the independent / alternative press, understood as not bound to a private, public or state enterprise or to some economic group. It takes gradually shape the constitution of the opposition between the traditional media and the independent / alternative press, having as a material base the new technologies of information. How can the new technology of information associated to the new settings of press freedom and the phenomenon of the contradiction of public opinion in the era of internet accomplish the mediation of the opinion in a globalized society? Or still, starting from the presupposition of the press freedom, how to guarantee that the society solves the contradiction of the public opinion? The phenomenon of the public opinion is contradicting because it has in itself, at the same time, the universality of constitutional principles of Law and Ethics, together with the peculiarity of the citizens’ rights and concerns. This contradiction finds its solution by means of the mediation of the freedom of the press itself within a frame of democratic legality. This is the power of the contradiction: to put into effect the dialectic tension between the opposed poles of the universal and the particular in the press freedom, avowing the right of every citizen to express publicly his opinion. This is Hegel’s theory of public opinion: the press freedom and the parliament, as a politic space, are privileged spheres of the mediation of the contradictory phenomenon of the public opinion. Keywords: Press freedom; public opinion; press; citizen journalists.

O presente artigo objetiva discutir a lógica subjacente ao movimento dialético da figura do Senhor e do Servo. Jean-Pierre Labarrière é quem afirma categoricamente a tese segundo a qual há uma Lógica por trás do movimento da Consciência. Ora, a questão fundamental que se coloca, nesse caso, é: qual a lógica que preside o movimento da consciência para a consciência de si, culminado em sua unidade no momento da Razão? A hipótese aqui perseguida, situando-se na esteira da interpretação de Labarrière, é de que a lógica que se encontra "por trás da consciência", nessa figura da Fenomenologia do Espírito, é a mesma lógica que Hegel apresenta na Doutrina da Essência, na Ciência da Lógica. Para tanto, explicitar as categorias lógicas da Doutrina da Essência e acompanhar o seu desdobramento configuram o objetivo central deste trabalho. This paper aims to discuss the logic that underlies the master-servant dialectic. Jean-Pierre Labarrière categorically claims that there is a logic underlying the movement of the consciousness. The fundamental issue at stake is this: What is the logic that regulates the movement of the consciousness of the self, which culminates in its unity in the moment of reason? The hypothesis advanced here, following Labarrière's suggestions, is that the logic that lies "behind the consciousness" in this figure in Phenomenology of the Mind, is the same logic that Hegel presents in the doctrine of essence in the Science of Logic. The central goal of the present work is to make explicit the logical categories of the doctrine of essence, and to follow their unfolding.

El fenómeno de la globalización pone en crisis la teoría de la soberanía nacional, porque el Estad-Nación, configurado por la modernidad no consigue ya controlar y proteger su territorio y, menos aún, garantizar la legitimación de sus decisiones y poder, con el fin de fomentar un proyecto político. La soberanía moderna ha sido elaborada a partir del Estado-Nación, cerrado sobre sí mismo en su territorio, volcado hacia las guerras de expansión contra otros Estados. El predominio de la soberanía interna oculta la dimensión inter-estatal, mientras que la soberanía postmoderna se construye a partir del Imperio Mundial, que ignora los Estado nacionales. Se verifica un traspaso del poder hacia la soberanía externa en detrimento de la garantía nacional. En efecto, tanto el primer como el segundo modo de soberanía se hunden en los extremos del silogismo, es decir, no entienden la soberanía interna y externa como una forma de mediación. A mi parecer Hegel propone una adecuada "tensión mediadora" entre los dos momentos de la soberanía.The phenomenon of globalization has brought the theory of the modern sovereignty into crisis, as the Nation-State, forged by modernity, is no longer able to control and protect its territory, and even less able to guarantee its people the legitimacy of its decisions, in the fostering of a political project. Modern sovereignty has developed from the initial starting point of the Nation-State, enclosed within itself in its own territory, and through wars of expansion against other States. The predominance of internal sovereignty eclipses the inter-state dimension, while post-modern sovereignty is constructed on the basis of a World Empire that ignores Nation-States. We are witnessing a displacement of power towards external sovereignty to the detriment of a national affirmation. Now, both the first and the second models of sovereignty are floundering in the extremes of the syllogism. In other words, internal and external sovereignty are not understood as a form of mediation. Hegel, in our opinion, puts forward the right "mediating tension" between the two moments of sovereignty theory.