Respuesta.

The article "Response" is a response to the comments made by Marcela Echeverri Muñoz, Renzo Honores, Nikos Potamianos, and Christian G. De Vito on the article "Paternalistic Punishments." The author thanks the comments and addresses the criticisms made by Echeverri regarding the lack of contextualization and comparative analysis in their article. The author explains that their focus is centered on the role of paternalism as a mode of social control and analyzes power relations surrounding slavery. They also highlight the coexistence of different frameworks of legitimation and punishment practices over time. Additionally, they respond to Honores' comments about the importance of analyzing legal processes and legal cultures. Overall, the author defends their approach and argues that paternalism persisted and intertwined with liberalism and republicanism due to the social relationships between the enslaved, the slaveholders, and the state authorities. The article discusses the conceptualization of the intervention of subaltern subjects in social and historical processes, focusing on the role of enslaved individuals in the dynamics of paternalism and punishment. The concept of "agency" is questioned, and the use of the terms "moral punishment" and "tactics" is proposed to analyze the practices and experiences of slaves. The importance of examining specific lawsuits as starting points for understanding real social and political relationships is emphasized. Additionally, the possibility of expanding the analysis to other forms of domination and social control is raised. [Extracted from the article]