about<\/p>\n
Collective actions \u2013 the coordination and mobilization of individual or group efforts related to shared interests and objectives \u2013 are important processes in the formation of social live in all historical periods. However, the processes of social mobilization and organization are not automatic effects or outcomes of shared social conditions, collective deprivations or structural constrictions. Therefore, it is analytically fundamental to consider the mechanisms which produce collective action - comprehending how they are activated and sustained - and to analyse the outcomes of this phenomena.<\/p>\n
Based in these considerations, the Research Group Associations, Contestation and Engagement (GPACE) aims to develop a research agenda around the following questions: 1) How to explain the emergency and sustenance of collective action and associations? 2) How do associative practices assume a contentious feature or meaning? 3) Which are the effects and outcomes produced by associative and contentious practices and how one can understand these outcomes in terms of cultural, political, economical and social changes? 4) Why do individuals engage themselves in associative practices and in contentious actions and how this engagement affects their lives? 1)<\/strong> Como explicar a emerg\u00eancia e a sustenta\u00e7\u00e3o dos processos de a\u00e7\u00e3o coletiva e de associa\u00e7\u00e3o?<\/em> 2)<\/strong> A partir de quais problemas e processos as pr\u00e1ticas associativas assumem um car\u00e1ter\/sentido contestador?<\/em> 3)<\/strong> Quais os efeitos ou resultados que as pr\u00e1ticas de associa\u00e7\u00e3o e contesta\u00e7\u00e3o produzem e como podemos entender esses efeitos em termos de mudan\u00e7as culturais, pol\u00edticas, econ\u00f4micas e sociais?<\/em> 4)<\/strong> Por que indiv\u00edduos se engajam em processos associativos e em a\u00e7\u00f5es de contesta\u00e7\u00e3o e quais as decorr\u00eancias disso para suas vidas?<\/em><\/p>\n These questions are an outcome of the maturation of the collective action study field during the last decades. Particularly important in this process are the studies on social and political contention, which enabled researchers to connect different empirical objects and theoretical frameworks such as: research on associations and civil society; social movements and political contention theories; and studies on engagement and militancy.<\/p>\n Aside from these general influences, in Brazil, the collective action study field is also affected by the literature on social movements produced during the decades of 1970 and 1980. These research focused on the emergency of urban, rural and new social movements in Brazil, investigating their construction as political subjects, their autonomy, identity and representation. Several analyses considered these social movements as new political actors, organized outside the boundaries of the production structures and distant from traditional political participation spaces. Generally, in these studies, social movements were comprehended as the agents of Brazilian democratization during an authoritarian and repressive historical period.<\/p>\n During the decade of 1990, \u201ccivil society\u201d became the most used concept in social movement and association studies. This concept became popular in social sciences, being used to gather distinct organizational models present in society, such as the ones which have a contentious feature in interactions with the state, as well as the ones which have a cooperative feature. Anyway, \u201ccivil society\u201d was related to the amount of social actors that would be responsible for Brazilian democratization.<\/p>\n Nevertheless, in the late 1990\u2019s and in the beginning of the decade of 2000, it is possible to observe a growing critical movement towards the analytical weaknesses of the \u201ccivil society\u201d model. Among these critics, it is possible to stress the strong normative feature of the \u201ccivil society\u201d concept which hindered possible empirical problematizations and the apprehension of the characteristics and dynamics of the processes that were distant to the established normative goals. Also, this perspective is criticized by its lack of theoretical and methodological tools for the analysis of the construction and action of civil society\u2019s actors. Regarding this point, it is possible to observe a strong critic towards the dichotomic and Manichean conception of the relation between civil society and the state, which hindered a satisfactory analysis of the institutional-political constrains of the associative processes.<\/p>\n Following this agenda, GPACE, founded in 2009 through the dialogue with diverse theoretical perspectives on association, contestation and engagement processes, aims to elaborate analytical frameworks adequate to Brazilian reality about social organization and mobilization processes in their relation with the (national and international) institutional political constraints, analyzing also the collective action repertoires, the mobilization structures and the frames which constitute these processes.<\/p>\n The research currently developed by the GPACE members are related to four major themes: engagement processes and militant careers; relations between institutional-political contexts\/dynamics and collective action; symbolic, interpretative and cultural dynamics of social mobilization; and the impact of new information and communication technologies on collective action.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Sobre As a\u00e7\u00f5es coletivas \u2013 ou seja, a mobiliza\u00e7\u00e3o e coordena\u00e7\u00e3o de esfor\u00e7os de indiv\u00edduos e grupos em torno de interesses e objetivos compartilhados \u2013 constituem importantes processos na conforma\u00e7\u00e3o da vida social em todas as \u00e9pocas. Os processos de mobiliza\u00e7\u00e3o e organiza\u00e7\u00e3o social n\u00e3o s\u00e3o, por\u00e9m, efeitos autom\u00e1ticos ou resultados necess\u00e1rios de condi\u00e7\u00f5es compartilhadas,… Read More »about<\/span><\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","spay_email":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-8","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ufrgs.br\/gpace\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ufrgs.br\/gpace\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ufrgs.br\/gpace\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ufrgs.br\/gpace\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ufrgs.br\/gpace\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8"}],"version-history":[{"count":22,"href":"https:\/\/www.ufrgs.br\/gpace\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1303,"href":"https:\/\/www.ufrgs.br\/gpace\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8\/revisions\/1303"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ufrgs.br\/gpace\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}