Uztaro

Jarraian aurkeztu dugun iruzkinean estatuaren teorian problematikoa den subiranotasunaren kontzepzioa aztertuko dugu Rousseauren eta Hard eta Negriren ikuspegitik. Autoreek ezagutaraztera ematen duten subjektua zein den jakinda, horrek egiten duen boterearen erabileraren nolakotasuna dela-eta ezaugarritzen diren subiranotasun-ereduak alderatuko ditugu. Izan ere, Rousseauk subjektu subirano gisa herria proposatzen duen bitartean, Hardt eta Negrik jendetza deituriko subjektu ez-subiranoa aurkezten digute. Hori horrela, modernitatetik postmodernitatera doan tartean, subiranotasunaren kontzepzioa bezalako kategoria zaharrak baldintza aldakorretara egokitzeko gaitasuna aurkitzen saiatuko gara, eta, horrela, pentsamendu politikoan sorten diren esanahien bariazioa frogatuz, nukleo esanguratsua nola mantentzen den aztertuko dugu.

Gako-hitzak: Subiranotasuna -- Jendetza -- Komunaren demokrazia -- Rousseau -- Hardt eta Negri -- Boterea

[Title]

[Abstract]

Sovereignity in question: In the thougt of Rousseau and Hardt & Negri In the following commentaries based on the point of view of Rousseau, Hard and Negri we will examine the concept of sovereignty, which is problematic in the theory of state. Knowing the subject that the authors reveal, we overturn the models of sovereignty that are characterized by the quality of the use of power by them. In fact, while Rousseau proposes the people as a sovereign subject, Hardt and Negri present us a non-sovereign subject. In this way, we will try to adapt old categories such as the conception of sovereignty to the changing conditions own of the period which goes from modernity to postmodernity, thus demonstrating that besides the variation of meanings inside the political thought, still remains a significant nucleus.

Key words: Sovereignty -- Crowd -- Democracy of the common -- Rousseau -- Hardt and Negri -- Power