RESUMEN
Concepts that integrate human, animal, and ecosystem health - such as One Health (OH) - have been highlighted in recent years and mobilized in transdisciplinary approaches. However, there is a lack of input from the social sciences in OH discussions. This is a gap to overcome, including in Latin America. Therefore, this paper incorporates recent studies from economics and anthropology to the debate, contributing to the opening of transdisciplinary dialogues for the elaboration of OH theory and practice. As a starting point, we explore the recent case of a tailings dam breach, making considerations about how and why this event was experienced in different ways by the affected Indigenous and non-Indigenous worlds. From economics, we show how different theories perceive and impact these different worlds, presenting some existing alternatives to the hegemonic thinking of domination and exploitation. From anthropology, we present the perspectivism concept, deriving from the field of relational ontologies, suggesting there are significant and inevitable disagreements-equivocations-among different worlds. Thus, we discuss how the social sciences can help address challenging factors that need to be considered in health approaches that intend to deal with complex global problems. In conclusion, OH should incorporate social science discussions, considering relating practice to the multiple realities in which a particular problem or conflict is inserted. Overcoming the barriers that hinder transdisciplinary dialogue is fundamental and urgent for an effective approach to the multiple and distinct interconnections among humans, animals and environments.
Asunto(s)
Salud Única , Animales , Humanos , Brasil , Ecosistema , Ciencias SocialesRESUMEN
Resumo: Este artigo tem o objetivo de colocar em xeque a oposição binária que separa surdos e ouvintes, como se fossem dois mundos distintos, cada qual marcado com sua própria cultura e língua: a língua brasileira de sinais em oposição ao português. Partindo de uma metodologia que se baseia de um lado, nos encontros mistos entre surdos e ouvintes (Martins, 2006) e, de outro lado, na narrativa de histórias do cotidiano, o texto indica que o binarismo não nos leva ao encontro da diferença. Assim, o trabalho conclui indicando que a tradução como versão, tal como proposta por Despret, (2012), é um modo de compor um mundo comum não como um universo, mas como pluriverso (Latour, 2011). A composição do comum como pluriverso é uma ação cotidiana, é também uma aposta ética e política a ser ativada reiteradamente no encontro com a diferença.
Resumen: Este artículo tiene como objetivo poner en tela de juicio la oposición binaria que separa sordos y oyentes, como si fueran dos mundos diferentes, cada uno marcado con su propia cultura y lengua: la lengua de signos de Brasil en comparación con el portugués. A partir de una metodología que se basa en un lado, en los encuentros mixtos entre sordos y oyentes (Martins, 2006) y, por otro lado, en la narrativa de historias de lo cotidiano, el texto indica que el binarismo no nos lleva al encuentro de la diferencia. Así, el trabajo concluía indicando que la traducción como versión, tal como propone Despret (2012), es un modo de componer un mundo común no como un universo, sino como pluriverso (Latour, 2011). La composición de lo común como pluriverso es una acción cotidiana, es también una apuesta ética y política a ser activada repetidamente en el encuentro con la diferencia.
Abstract: This article aims to put in check the binary opposition that separates deaf and hearing, as if they were two distinct worlds, each marked with its own culture and language: the Brazilian language of signs as opposed to Portuguese. From a methodology based on the one hand, in the mixed meetings between deaf and listeners (Martins, 2006) and, on the other hand, in the narrative of everyday stories, the text indicates that binarism does not lead us to encounter difference. Thus, the paper concludes by pointing out that translation as a version, as proposed by Despret (2012), is a way of composing an common world not as a universe, but as pluriverse (Latour, 2011). The composition of the common as pluriverse is an everyday action, it is also an ethical and political bet to be activated repeatedly in the encounter with the difference.
RESUMEN
RESUMEN Las ideas centrales del artículo giran alrededor de dos nociones que deberían ser sustanciales para el análisis político contemporáneo: la pluriversidad y la micropolítica. Si bien estos conceptos han sido discutidos en los últimos quinquenios en la literatura académica, se pretende interrogarlos, analizar sus posibilidades y reflexionar sobre sus limitaciones. En un primer momento, se expone la noción de pluriverso democrático y se pone en diálogo con dos corrientes que hacen carrera en la teoría política actual: Laclau/Mouffe y Negri/ Hardt. La segunda parte explora el potencial que tiene para las teorías políticas la noción de micropolítica cultural, ya que estas han seguido más un derrotero estadocéntrico y macropolítico, y en su mayoría han silenciado otros escenarios del actuar político, diferentes del Estado, la geopolítica o el mercado.
ABSTRACT The central ideas of the article turn around two notions that should be substantial for the political contemporary analysis: the pluriversity and the macropolitic. Even though these concepts have been discussed in the latest five-year periods in the academic literature, the intention is to question them, analyze their possibilities and reflect on their limitations. In the first moment, the notion of democratic pluriverse is exposed and it is placed in dialogue with two tendencies that make career in the current political theory: Laclau/Mouffe and Negri/Hardt. The second part explores the potential that the notion of cultural micropolitic has for the politic theories, since it has continued a state-centric and macropolitic route, and most they have silenced another scenes of political acting, different of state, the geopolitic or the market.