Tomada de decisão estratégica e modelos agregativos de sujeitos no processo coletivo estrutural

Abstract

The evolution of the ontological and methodological debates, in Sociology, characterized by the polarization between individualist and collectivist theories, has improved to describe social systems and explain social phenomena according to the interactions between their agents and their parts (among which, their institutions). According to the emergentist sociological theory, social conflicts are types of social phenomena that have inherent transformative potential, which comes from causal powers that emerge from these interactions. Moreover, the emergentist theory has given the name of structures to the interactions between institutions. By applying these premises to Procedural Law and Group Rights, this doctoral thesis identifies collective disputes as a type of social phenomenon, whose transformative potential translates into an intrinsic internal mutability, which can whether assume attenuated or accentuated degrees. This research demonstrates that, the higher the mutability of the respective collective litigation, there is a correspondent increase of its prospective projection and, in consequence, a need to combine predictive and evaluative decision-making for its effective resolution – both of which susceptible to risks of error, caused by biases and noise in the heuristic mechanisms of individual or collective deliberation. Considering these premises, this research methodologically concentrates the analysis of the structural collective lawsuit, in the performance of the subjects who aim at strategic decision-making, in favor of collectivities, to the solution of structural disputes (as diagnosed by US doctrine and jurisprudence in the mid-twentieth century), which, following the sociological use of the term structure, encompass unconstitutional nonconformities in the institutions of social systems and in the interactions they establish among themselves and with the agents of these same systems. Through a legal-dogmatic methodological approach, transdisciplinary and dialectical method, the doctoral research diagnoses that the high degree of mutability of structural disputes, associated with their polycentric nature, demands that their resolution through jurisdictional means is not confined to the strictest parameters of the traditional procedural method, especially with regard to the limits of participation and the forms and effects of decision-making. In this sense, it considers the subjects, who are not invested of the jurisdiction, as active participants in decision-making. Therefore, the procedural model applies a cyclic duality and subjectively complex decisions – the structural collective lawsuit. And, in order to make use of strategies of the architecture of choice, to reduce the risk of cognitive interference (bias and noise) in their decision-making, the research proposes to analyze the models around which interested subjects are aggregated, in structural collective processes, for their individual and collective deliberations.