Direitos humanos, direito constitucional e neopragmatismo

Abstract

O neopragmatismo tem como cerne de seu discurso a crítica às correntes de pensamento que procuram alcançar a verdade, a justiça e a moral. Para o neopragmatista, essa perspectiva, fortemente influenciada pela tradição iluminista-kantiana, ao não reconhecer a historicidade e a contingência da vida, tenta buscar algo fora do homem, além do tempo, algo transcendental, abstrato e metafísico que possa reduzir as angústias da pós-modernidade e imprimir à racionalidade um papel salvador e à filosofia uma função de indicadora de lugar. Como antídoto a essa visão de centralidade do filósofo profissional nas democracias ocidentais e da tentação da razão teórica, o neopragmatismo propõe um olhar para o futuro, o destaque das análises das conseqüências dos atos e o reconhecimento de que o homem está situado inescapavelmente em seu contexto. Em outras palavras, o sentido específico de democracia aparece quando, ao invés de impor uma visão moral do mundo, tenta-se politicamente valorar todas as crenças e interesses e construir concordâncias ou posições medianas. Para o neopragmatista, a democracia, como busca de decisões políticas em ambientes de dissenso, tem prioridade sobre a filosofia. O neopragmatismo oferece um excelente instrumento para a renovação do atual discurso do direito constitucional, de origem importada, praticado no Brasil. Tal como as posições filosóficas quase transcendentais, o discurso do direito constitucional é ainda abstrato e metafísico, características essas encobertas pelas novas facetas do racionalismo jurídico que tentam ainda alcançar a verdade por meio de subterfúgios da razão, como o destaque do procedimento e da técnica (em detrimento aparente do conteúdo). As modernas dimensões do discurso constitucional (teoria dos direitos fundamentais e neoconstitucionalismo) formatam uma metódica da ponderação, baseada em princípios e valores, que outorgam um conteúdo moral ao Direito e reafirmam o protagonismo (e a exclusividade) do jurista e do Direito na resolução dos problemas, especialmente em matéria de direitos humanos. O neopragmatismo, diante do esgotamento desse modelo em virtude dos déficits democráticos e da aridez da linguagem, propõe sua superação a partir do deslocamento da centralidade, na democracia, do jurista (ou do Poder Judiciário) para o cidadão e do Direito para a política. Para tanto, propõe que os juristas assumam um papel de ironistas liberais ou mediadores e se afastem da função de um profeta que diz o que é a lei e a Constituição. No campo dos direitos humanos, isso não pode ser executado dentro dos limites rígidos do discurso técnico-transcendental da ponderação. Superando essa perspectiva, o neopragmatismo sugere que a construção de uma nova compreensão dos direitos humanos parta da sentimentalidade, da solidariedade e, acima de tudo, de um vocabulário mais inclusivo e honesto, que possa identificar as posições políticas em jogo e, por meio da criatividade e da imaginação, edificar soluções as mais medianas e consensuais possíveis, mesmo no âmbito de trabalho da Jurisdição Constitucional. _______________________________________________________________________________ ABSTRACT

The neopragmatism has in its core the criticism to certain thought patterns that aim at achieving “truth”, “justice” and “moral”. To the neopragmatist, this perspective, highly influenced by the Illuminist-kantian tradition, when not recognizing the historicity and contingency of life, tries reaching something beyond man and time, transcendental, abstract and metaphysical, able to diminish the miseries of postmodernity and imprint to rationality a saviour role and to philosophy a “site placing” duty. As an antidote to this central vision of “professional philosopher” in western democracies and to the temptation of theoretical reasoning, neopragmatism proposes a look towards the future, highlighting the analysis of the consequences of its acts and the acceptance that man is inescapably inserted in his context. In other words, the specific sense of democracy arises when, instead of imposing a moral interpretation of the world, one tries to politically value all faiths and interests and build acquiescences or median positions. To the neopragmatist, democracy, as political decision making in disagreement context, has priority over philosophy. Neopragmatism offers an excellent tool for the renovation of the current reasoning of constitutional law, of imported origin, used in Brazil. As well as the “neartranscendental” philosophic positions, constitutional law reasoning is still abstract and metaphysical, features shadowed by the new faces of legal rationalism that try to reach “truth” by the means of evasive reason such as the protruding of procedures and technique, in apparent prejudice to content. Modern dimensions of the constitutional reasoning (“fundamental rights theory” and “neoconstitutionalism”) shape a balancing methodology based in principles and values, that impose a moral content to Law and reassures the main role (and exclusivity) of the jurist and of Law in the resolution of problems, especially in matters of human rights. In face of the exhaustion of this model due to the democratic deficits and the baldness of language, neopragmatism proposes its overcoming by displacing centrality, in democracy, of the jurist (or the whole Judicial Branch) to the citizen and of Law to the politics. For so, proposes that jurists take on the role of “liberal ironists” or mediators and distance themselves from the prophet function that says what is law and the Constitution. In the field of human rights this cannot be executed within the rigid limits of the technical-transcendental speech of balancing. Overcoming this perspective, neopragmatism suggests that the building of a new human rights understanding takes off from sentimentality, solidarity and, above all, a more inclusive and frank vocabulary, able to identify political visions involved and, by the means of creativity and imagination, edify the more median and consensual possible solutions, even in the Constitutional Jurisdiction scope. The neopragmatism has in its core the criticism to certain thought patterns that aim at achieving “truth”, “justice” and “moral”. To the neopragmatist, this perspective, highly influenced by the Illuminist-kantian tradition, when not recognizing the historicity and contingency of life, tries reaching something beyond man and time, transcendental, abstract and metaphysical, able to diminish the miseries of postmodernity and imprint to rationality a saviour role and to philosophy a “site placing” duty. As an antidote to this central vision of “professional philosopher” in western democracies and to the temptation of theoretical reasoning, neopragmatism proposes a look towards the future, highlighting the analysis of the consequences of its acts and the acceptance that man is inescapably inserted in his context. In other words, the specific sense of democracy arises when, instead of imposing a moral interpretation of the world, one tries to politically value all faiths and interests and build acquiescences or median positions. To the neopragmatist, democracy, as political decision making in disagreement context, has priority over philosophy. Neopragmatism offers an excellent tool for the renovation of the current reasoning of constitutional law, of imported origin, used in Brazil. As well as the “neartranscendental” philosophic positions, constitutional law reasoning is still abstract and metaphysical, features shadowed by the new faces of legal rationalism that try to reach “truth” by the means of evasive reason such as the protruding of procedures and technique, in apparent prejudice to content. Modern dimensions of the constitutional reasoning (“fundamental rights theory” and “neoconstitutionalism”) shape a balancing methodology based in principles and values, that impose a moral content to Law and reassures the main role (and exclusivity) of the jurist and of Law in the resolution of problems, especially in matters of human rights. In face of the exhaustion of this model due to the democratic deficits and the baldness of language, neopragmatism proposes its overcoming by displacing centrality, in democracy, of the jurist (or the whole Judicial Branch) to the citizen and of Law to the politics. For so, proposes that jurists take on the role of “liberal ironists” or mediators and distance themselves from the prophet function that says what is law and the Constitution. In the field of human rights this cannot be executed within the rigid limits of the technical-transcendental speech of balancing. Overcoming this perspective, neopragmatism suggests that the building of a new human rights understanding takes off from sentimentality, solidarity and, above all, a more inclusive and frank vocabulary, able to identify political visions involved and, by the means of creativity and imagination, edify the more median and consensual possible solutions, even in the Constitutional Jurisdiction scope.