The fragmentation of a discipline: how diversity elevates and undermines Ir’s normative potential
The fragmentation of a discipline: how diversity elevates and undermines Ir’s normative potential
Barra lateral del artículo
PDF (English)
FLIP
HTML
XML
Contenido principal del artículo
Resumen
Las relaciones internacionales (RR.II.) se han ido transformando de una disciplina relativamente Estado-céntrica, que principalmente se preocupa por la seguridad internacional y el comportamiento de las grandes potencias, en un campo de juego intelectual mucho más diverso. El presente artículo evalúa las implicaciones de esta transformación en relación con el potencial normativo de las RR.II., el cual es definido en términos de producción de conocimiento y pensamiento crítico. Aunque la creciente diversidad ayuda a abordar los múltiples desafíos y crisis a los que se enfrenta la humanidad, también es evidente que el conocimiento y la jerga especializados, que son necesarios para participar en un subcampo particular, impiden que los académicos de las RR.II. se entiendan entre ellos. Este desarrollo no solo socava la vitalidad de nuestro campo de estudio, sino que también obstruye nuestra capacidad de interactuar con actores políticos y relacionarnos con el público. Además, comunidades académicas que solo miran hacia adentro minimizan el pensamiento crítico. Aunque no existe una panacea para revertir esta tendencia, el artículo afirma que el cultivo de redes de diálogo puede mitigar sus peores efectos al facilitar el aprendizaje mutuo y mejorar nuestras habilidades comunicativas.
Palabras clave:
Descargas
Detalles del artículo
Referencias (VER)
Acharya, A. & Buzan, B. (2019). The making of Global International Relations: Origins and evolution of ir at its centenary. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni¬versity Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108647670
Andreas, P. & Greenhill, K. M. (2010). Sex, drugs, and body counts: The politics of numbers in global crime and conflict. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7591/9780801458309
Ashley, R. K. (1984). The poverty of neorealism. Inter¬national Organization, 38(2), 225-286. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300026709
Baylis, J.; Smith, S. & Owens, P. (Eds.). (2017). The globalization of world politics: An introduction to International Relations (7th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780198739852.001.0001
Bull, H. (2000). International Relations as an academic pursuit (1972). In K. Alderson & A. Hurrell (Eds.), Hedley Bull on international society (246- 264). London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-62666-3_12
Bull, H. (2002). The anarchical society: A study of order in world politics (3rd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.
Buzan, B. & Hansen, L. (2009). The evolution of Inter¬national Security Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511817762
Brown, C. (2013). The poverty of grand theory. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 483-497. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494321
Carr, E. H. (1946). The twenty years’ crisis 1919-1939: An introduction to the study of world politics (2nd ed.). London: MacMillan & Co. Ltd. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-15208-7
Cox, R. (1981). Social forces, states and world order: Beyond International Relations theory. Millenium Journal of International Affairs, 10(2), 126-155. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298810100020501
Dunne, T.; Hansen, L. & Wight, C. (2013). The end of International Relations theory? European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 405-425. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113495485
Dunne, T.; Kurki, M. & Smith, S. (Eds.). (2014). Inter¬national Relations theories: Discipline and diversity (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ennis, R. (1991). Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception. Teaching Philosophy, 14(1), 5-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil19911412
Guzzini, S. (2013). The ends of International Relations theory: Stages of reflexivity and modes of theori¬zing. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 521-541. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494327
Hermann, M. G. (1998). One field, many perspectives: Building the foundations for dialogue. Internatio¬nal Studies Quarterly, 42(4), 605-624. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0020-8833.00099
Hollis, M. & Smith, S. (1990). Explaining and understan¬ding International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Paperbacks.
Jackson, P. T. (2016). The conduct of inquiry in Interna¬tional Relations (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315731360
Jackson, P. T. & Nexon, D. (2013). International theory in a post-paradigmatic era: From substantive wa¬gers to scientific ontologies. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 543-565. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113495482
Keohane, R. O. (1988). International institutions: Two approaches. International Studies Quarterly, 32(4), 379-396. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2600589
Keohane, R. O. (1989). International Relations theory: Contributions of a feminist standpoint. Mille¬nium – Journal of International Studies, 18(2), 245-253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298890180021001
Keohane, R. O. (2008). Big questions in the study of world politics. In C. Reus-Smit & D. Snidal (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of International Rela¬tions (708-715). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kornprobst, M. (2009). International Relations as rhe¬torical discipline: Toward (re)-newing horizons. International Studies Review, 11(1), 87-108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2008.01826.x
Kristensen, P. M. (2018). International Relations at the end: A sociological autopsy. International Studies Quarterly, 62, 245-259. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqy002
Lake, D. (2011). Why “isms” are evil: Theory, episte¬mology, and academic sects as impediments to understanding and progress. International Studies Quarterly, 55(2), 465-480. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00661.x
Lapid, Y. (1989). The third debate: On the prospects of international theory in a post-positivist era. International Studies Quarterly, 33(3), 235-254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2600457
Lapid, Y. & Kratochwil, F. (Eds.). (1995). The return of culture and identity in ir theory. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Ling, L. H. M. (2014). The Dao of World Politics. Toward a post-Westphalian, wordlist International Relations. New York: Routledge.
Maliniak, D.; Oakes, A.; Peterson, S. & Tierney, M. J. (2011). International Relations in the us academy. International Studies Quarterly, 55(2), 437-464. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00653.x
Maliniak, D.; Peterson, S.; Powers, R. & Tierney M. J. (2018). Is International Relations a global disci¬pline? Hegemony, insularity, and diversity in the field. Security Studies, 27(3), 448-484. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2017.1416824
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2011). Imperial by design. The Na¬tional Interest, 111, 16-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2011.04735.x
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014). Why the Ukraine crisis is the West’s fault. The liberal delusions that provoked Putin. Foreign Affairs, 93(5), 1-12.
Mearsheimer, J. J. & Walt, S. M. (2013). Leaving theory behind: Why simple hypothesis testing is bad for International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 427-457. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494320
Morgenthau, H. J. (1948). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Morgenthau, H. J. (1962). The intellectual and political functions of a theory of International Relations. In H. J. Morgenthau, Politics in the 20th century. Vol. 1: The decline of democratic politics (62-78). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Oren, I. (2016). A sociological analysis of the decline of American ir theory. International Studies Review, 18(4), 571-596. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viw028
Reus-Smit, C. (2013). Beyond metatheory? European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 589-608. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113495479
Rosenberg, J. (2016). International Relations in the prison of political science. International Relations, 30(2), 127-153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117816644662
Sylvester, C. (1994). Feminist theory and International Relations in a post-modern era. Cambridge: Cam¬bridge University Press.
Sylvester, C. (2013). Experiencing the end and afterlife of International Relations/theory. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 609-626. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494322
Tickner, A. B. & Blaney, D. L. (Eds.). (2012). Thinking International Relations differently. London and New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203129920
Tickner, A. B. (2013). Core, periphery, and (neo)impe¬rialist International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 627-646. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494323
Vasquez, J. A. (1995). The post-positivist debate: Re¬constructing scientific enquiry and international relations theory after enlightenment’s fall. In K. Booth & S. M. Smith, International relations theory today (217-240). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Viotti, P. R. & Kauppi, M. V. (1987). International Re¬lations theory: Realism, pluralism, globalism and beyond. New York: Macmillan.
Wæver, O. (1998). The sociology of a not so international discipline: American and European developments in International Relations. International Organi¬zation, 52(4), 687-727. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550725
Waltz, K. N. (2012). Why Iran should get the bomb. Nuclear balancing would mean stability. Foreign Affairs, 91(4), 2-5.
Citado por
