Moira Perez

Cet article propose un dialogue Sud-Sud sur les défis posés par le champ politique contemporain. En plus des coordinatrices Joice Barbosa Becerra et Moira Pérez, à cette conversation participent Silvana Tapia Tapia de l’Équateur, Abdourahmane Seck du Sénégal et Verónica Figueroa Huencho de Wellmapu (Chili). Ces trois personnes travaillent à la fois dans le milieu académique et dans le domaine social, car elles exercent un activisme politique et/ou communautaire à partir duquel elles produisent des connaissances collectives et situées. La conversation aborde entre autres les sujets suivants: l’expression des formes contemporaines du neoconservatisme et de l’autoritarisme, les conflits entre les mouvements sociaux et les institutions, leurs tensions avec un État qui tend à la cooptation mais qui maintient également de profondes loyautés capitalistes et coloniales, et les possibilités et expériences de formes alternatives d’organisation collective et communautaire. L’article explore également le rôle du monde académique et des personnes y travaillant, prises par une tension entre les engagements institutionnels et la politique radicale.

The paper applies the theoretical frameworks of epistemic injustice and narrativist philosophy of history to read the process of re-signification of an event that took place in a prison in the city of Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 1978, called “Massacre in the Seventh Ward” or “Mutiny of the Mattresses”. By looking into this case, we explore the exercise of epistemic resistance through category expansion, drawing on the most recent developments on hermeneutical injustice as a deficiency in the application (and not only in the content) of the available concepts. This allows us to identify the selected case as an example of hermeneutical injustice, and to highlight some characteristics of such injustice that remain under-analysed in the specialised literature, linked to agency, temporality, and the concrete forms adopted by resistance. Among the latter, we highlight the role that can be played by the exercise of what in philosophy of history has been called the “practical past”: an intervention in the dispute of meanings about the past, born out of an explicit commitment to the present. Finally, the conclusions present some caveats to be considered in the study of epistemic injustice in the context of institutions such as prisons.

Desde diversos ámbitos se ha señalado la necesidad de abordar las nociones y difi-cultades del pluralismo que caracteriza a la sociedad actual. Se busca aportar una lectura crítica de tres abordajes considerablemente diferentes del tema: En torno a lo político (2005) de Chantal Mouffe, Political Liberalism (1996) de John Rawls y Pluralism (2005) de William E. Connolly. Se sopesan sus fortalezas y debilidades, así como las posibilidades que brindan para comprender el pluralismo y llevar los aportes teóricos a la esfera práctica.

Different sectors have expressed the need to address the different notions of pluralism that characterize modern society, as well as their difficulties. The article provides a critical reading of three significantly different approaches to the issue: Chantal Mouffe's On the Political, John Rawls' Political Liberalism, and William E. Connolly's Pluralism. It discusses their strengths and weaknesses, as well as the possibilities they provide to understand pluralism and take their theoretical contributions to the field of practice.