Institutional Change and the Paradox of (Restitution and) Restauration of the Institution

Authors

  • Petar Bojanić Principal Research Fellow, Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, University of Belgrade

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2298//FID1904465B

Keywords:

institution, engagement, change, restauration, Europe

Abstract

My intention in this text is to present the most significant contribution of some French philosophers and anthropologists to the notion of reconstruction and advancement of institutions. The paradox of change, reform or transformation of the institution – is an entirely new institution possible? How do institutions die? – lies in the difficulty or even impossibility to change something that manifests what we are as a group. If institutions really present or represent the relations among all of us, how can they be changed in the first place? Whence the capacity for change? What allows for the idea of the “new”?

References

Adorno, Th. W. (2003), “Kritik”, in Gesammelte Schriften, Vol. 10/2. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 785–793.
Bobbio, N. 2017: “Bobbio: filosofi e tecnici, meglio tenerli separati”, La Stampa, May 22nd.
Bojanić, P. (2019), “Che cos’è un atto d’impegno? Husserl e Reinach sul ‘soggetto di livello superiore’ (Noi) e gli atti (non) sociali”, Teoria 1: 217–230.
–. (2016), “L’idea della contro-istituzione”, Itinerari. Annuario di ricerche filosofiche 55: 185–200.
–. (2015), “Biopolitica. Il ʻfuori’ dell’istituzione”, in D. Gentili and E. Stimilli (eds.), Differenze italiane. Politica e filosofia: mappe e sconfinamenti, Roma: Deriveapprodi, pp. 113–120.
De Staël, M. (1800), De la littérature considérée dans ses rapports avec les institutions sociales. Paris: Charpentier.
Esposito, R. (2019), Istituzione: tra ordine e conflitto, Convegno Internazionale di Studi Scuola Normale Superiore Pisa, 19–20 marzo, position paper.
Fauconnet P. and M. Mauss (1901), “La sociologie”, in Grande Encyclopédie, vol. 30, Paris: Société anonyme de la Grande Encyclopédie, pp. 165–176.
Hubert, H and M. Mauss (1908), „Introduction a l’analyse de quelques phénomènes religieux“, Revue de l’histoire des religions 58: 163–203.
Laurent, E. (2018), L’impasse collaborative. Pour une véritable économie de la coopération. Paris: Les liens qui libèrent.
Mauss, M. (1979) “L’oeuvre de Mauss par lui-même”, Revue française de sociologie 20: 209–220.
Marx, K. (1982) “Marx an Ruge (September 1843)”, in K. Marx and F. Engels, Gesamtausgabe, vol. I. 2, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, pp. 486–489.
Rousseau, J-J. (1990), OEuvres complètes, vol. 3. Paris: Gallimard.
Von Jhering, R. (1969), “Die active Solidarobligation”, Gesammelte Aufsätze, vol. 3, Aalen: Scientia Verlag, pp. 409–464.
Saint-Simon, C. H. (1998), “De la réorganisation de la société européenne”, in P. Ory (ed.), L’Europe, Paris: Omnibus.

Published

2019-12-27

How to Cite

Bojanić, P. (2019) “Institutional Change and the Paradox of (Restitution and) Restauration of the Institution”, Filozofija i društvo/Philosophy and Society. Belgrade, Serbia, 30(4), pp. 465–475. doi: 10.2298//FID1904465B.