Banner Portal
Is International Relations still an American social science discipline in Latin America?
PDF (Português (Brasil))

Keywords

TRIP. Influência americana. América Latina. Relações internacionais.

How to Cite

VILLA, Rafael Duarte; PIMENTA, Marilia Carolina de Souza. Is International Relations still an American social science discipline in Latin America?. Opinião Pública, Campinas, SP, v. 23, n. 1, p. 261–288, 2017. Disponível em: https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/op/article/view/8650180. Acesso em: 18 jul. 2024.

Abstract

Nos últimos 40 anos, pesquisas mostraram que a disciplina de relações internacionais reproduz a influência norte-americana nos âmbitos da epistemologia, do método, dos paradigmas e dinâmicas institucionais. Este artigo visa a explorar o caso latino-americano, a partir da análise dos dados publicados pelo Teaching, Research and International Politics Project (TRIP) de 2014 do Instituto para a Teoria e Prática de Relações Internacionais do College William e Mary, Virginia (EUA), que pesquisa comunidades de relações internacionais em 32 países do mundo. O artigo tem por objetivo responder a duas questões principais: (i) se a influência norte-americana segue sendo dominante, em seus aspectos epistemológicos, paradigmáticos e de representações institucionais na região, tal como pesquisas no passado demonstraram; (ii) se existe contestação a tal influência na região. Em princípio, o artigo evidencia uma resposta positiva à primeira pergunta. Entretanto, e mais importante, a análise dos dados permite revelar a ascensão de questionamentos à influência norteamericana, sobretudo no que se refere aos aspectos epistêmicos e paradigmáticos. Os dados reforçam a tendência à miscigenação epistemológica e paradigmática e evidenciam não haver consenso quanto ao escopo de dominação norte-americana na comunidade latino-americana, especialmente por parte da comunidade epistêmica brasileira de relações internacionais, a mais numerosa e estruturada da região.
PDF (Português (Brasil))

References

ALKER, H.; BIERSTEKERR, T. “The dialectics of world order: notes for a future archeologist of international savoir faire”. International Studies Quarterly, 28(2), p. 121-142, Jun. 1984.

AYDINLI, E; MATTHEWS, J. “Are the core and the periphery irreconcilable? The curious world of publishing in contemporary International Relations”. International Studies Perspectives, 1, p. 289- 303, 2000.

AYDINLI, E.; MATTHEWS, J. “Turkey: towards homegrown theorizing and building a disciplinary community”. In: TICKNER, A.; WAEVER, O. (eds.). International Relations scholarship around the world. London & New York: Routledge. 2009.

AYOOB, M. Subaltern realism: International Relations theory meets the third world. In: NEUMAN, S. (ed.). International relations theory and the third world. New York: St. Martin´s Press, p. 31-54, 1998.

BIERSTEKER, T. “Eroding boundaries, contested terrain”. International Studies Review, 1(1), Spring, p. 3-9, 1999.

BARASUOL, F.; SILVA, A. “International Relations theory in Brazil: trends and challenges in teaching and research”. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 59(2), e005, p. 1-20, 2016.

BREUNING, M. “Foreign policy analysis: an empirical assessment of the state of the art”. Paper prepared for presentation at “Foreign Policy Agendas and Actors: Views from the North and the South”. Institute of International Relations/Instituto de Relações Internacionais (IRI), Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio), Brazil, Sep. 8-9, 2010.

BREUNING, M.; BREDEHOFT, J.; WALTON, E. “Promise and performance: an evaluation of journals in International Relations”. International Studies Perspectives, 6(4), p. 447-461, Nov. 2005.

BROWN, C. “The poverty of grand theory”. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), p. 483- 497, 2013.

CARDOSO, F.; FALETO, E. Dependência e desenvolvimento na América Latina. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Zahar, 1979.

CARPICU, C. “¿Hacia una hegemonía del ‘modelo mainstream norteamericano’? Enfoques de la ciencia política en América Latina (2000-2012)”. Revista Latino-Americana de Investigación Crítica, 1 (1), p. 133-60, 2014.

DUNNE, T.; HANSEN, L.; WIGHT, C. “The end of International Relations theory?”. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), p. 405-425, 2013.

ESCUDÉ, C. An introduction to peripherical realism and its implications for the interstate system: Argentina and the Condor II Missile Project. In: NEUMAN, S. (ed.). International Relations theory and the third world. New York: St. Martin’s Press, p. 55-75, 1998.

ESPACH, R. “International institutions: two approaches”. International Studies Quarterly, 32(4), p. 379-396, 1988.

ESPACH, R. (ed.). Latin America in the new international system. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2001.

GOLDSTEIN, J.; KEOHANE, R. (eds.). Ideas & foreign policy. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. 1993.

HERZ, M. “The study of international relations in Latin America”. Symposium: “El Estado de la Disciplina de las Relaciones Internacionales en América”. Rio de Janeiro, 2010.

HOFFMANN, S. “An American social science: International Relations”. Daedalus, 106 (3), p. 41-60, 1977.

HOLSTI, K. The dividing discipline: hegemony and diversity in international theory. London: Allen & Unwin, 1985.

KEOHANE, R. Between vision and reality: variables in Latin American foreign policy. In: TULCHIN, J.; Espach, R. (eds.). Latin America in the New International System. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2001.

KATZENSTEIN, P.; KEOHANE, R.; KRASNER, S. “International organization and the study of world politics”. International Organization, 52(4), Autumm, p. 645-685, 1998.

KRISTENSEN, P. “Dividing discipline: structures of communication in International Relations”. International Studies Review, 14(1), p. 32-50, 2012.

LAKE, D. A. “Theory is dead, long live theory: the end of the great debates and the rise of eclecticism in International Relations”. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), p. 567-587, 2013.

LEHMAN, K.; LUCENA, C. IRI: “Pensando o futuro: objetivos e estratégias” (draft paper). Workshop: “Publicações e Impacto Acadêmico”. Universidade de São Paulo, 2013.

MALINIAK, D., et al. TRIP 2014 Faculty Survey. Williamsburg, VA: Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations, 2014. Available at: . Acesso em: 5 Apr. 2017.

MALINIAK, D. TRIP 2011 Faculty Survey. Williamsburg, VA: Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations. Available at: . Acesso em: 5 Apr. 2017.

MALINIAK, D. “International Relations in the US academy”. International Studies Quarterly, 55(2), p. 437-464, 2011.

NEUMAN, S. (ed.). International Relations theory and the third world. New York: St. Martin´s Press, 1998.

NEUMAN, S. International Relations: theory and the third world: an oxymoron?. In: NEUMAN, S. (ed.). International Relations theory and the third world. New York: St. Martin´s Press, p. 1-29, 1998.

OCHOA, L., et al. “La disciplina de las relaciones internacionales en México: enseñanza, enfoques y programas docentes”. Ciudad de México: Benemerita/Amei/Feyri, 2013.

PUCHALA, D. Third world thinking and contemporary International Relations. In: NEUMAN, S. (ed.). International Relations theory and the third world. New York: St. Martin´s Press, p. 133-157, 1998.

SCHOEMAN, M. South Africa: between history and a hard place. In: TICKNER, A.; WAEVER, O. (eds.). International Relations scholarship around the world. London & New York: Routledge, 2009.

SMITH, S. “The discipline of International Relations: still an American social science?”. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2(3), p. 374-402, Oct. 2000.

SMITH, S. “The United States and the discipline of International Relations: hegemonic country, hegemonic discipline”. International Studies Review, 4(2), p. 67-85, 2002.

TICKNER, A. Los estudios internacionales en América Latina. CESO y Departamento de Ciencia Política de la Universidad de los Andes. Bogotá: Alfaomega Colombiana, 2002.

TICKNER, A. Latin America: still policy dependent after all these years?. In: TICKNER, A.; WAEVER, O. (eds.). International Relations scholarship around the world. London & New York: Routledge, p. 32- 52, 2009.

TICKNER, A.; CEPEDA, C.; BERNAL, J. Enseñanza, investigación y política internacional en América Latina. DDCP, 19. Documentos del Departamento de Ciencia Política, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, 2012.

TICKNER, A.; WAEVER, O. Introduction: geocultural epistemologies. In: TICKNER, A.; WEAVER, O. (eds.). International Relations scholarship around the world. London & New York: Routledge, p. 1-31, 2009.

VILLA, R.; SOUZA, M. “Communities of International Relations in emerging world: neither resistant to the positivism nor beyond debates”. Journal of International Relations and Foreign Policy, 2(3,4), p. 67-97, Dec. 2014.

WALT, S. “Is IR still an ‘American social science’?”. Foreign Policy, Jun. 2011.

WEAVER, O. “The sociology of a not so international discipline: American and European developments in International Relations”. International Organization, 52(4), Autumn, p. 687-727, 1998.

WENDT, A. Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

A Opinião Pública utiliza a licença do Creative Commons (CC), preservando assim, a integridade dos artigos em ambiente de acesso aberto.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.