Search results

Por mucho tiempo considerada una disciplina preocupada con el problema del orden, las Relaciones Internacionales pasaron por un proceso de transformación que amplió su alcance hacia las esferas más diversas de la vida social y política del mundo contemporáneo. Una parte significativa del crédito de este proceso de renovación puede ser atribuida al giro crítico en los estudios internacionales. Al incorporar el dinamismo intelectual del posestructuralismo y del posmarxismo a los debates teóricos en el área, el pensamiento crítico internacional creó las condiciones para la actual diversificación y pluralización del área. El presente artículo discute cómo la Sociología Política Internacional (SPI) surge como efecto de este proceso de cuáles son sus contribuciones para el desarrollo de formas innovadoras de crítica de la política mundial contemporánea. Intentamos mostrar cómo, a través de métodos y epistemologías transdisciplinares, la SPI ofrece nuevas formas de articular procesos sociales y políticos en el espacio internacional, repensando y problematizando sus fronteras y límites. El artículo propone, en la primera sección, que la Sociología Política Internacional tiene sus linajes intelectuales en el giro crítico en Relaciones Internacionales, y se desarrolla profundizando el potencial de una perspectiva analítica del poder como descentralizado y fragmentado, así como de concepciones de agencia situada en campos sociales específicos. Lo que se intenta, es pensar lo internacional con base en una topología alternativa que explore transversalidades y evite el pensamiento en niveles y escalas. A continuación, discutimos algunos de los conceptos clave de la SPI, como transversalidad, campos sociales, ensamblajes, entre otros, para después mostrar cómo este campo piensa el problema del cambio, el lugar de las prácticas en la reflexión sobre la agencia, y la prioridad para el análisis de flujos e intersticios. Finalmente, el artículo reflexiona sobre el lugar de la Sociología Política Internacional en la disciplina de Relaciones Internacionales y sobre su contribución específica para el pensamiento crítico internacional.

For some time, the theoretical debate in international relations has occupied an ambiguous place in the discipline. For some, the remarkable diversity of theoretical production expresses the dynamism of a field that has grown thanks to its capacity for dialogue with a wide range of disciplines from the humanities and social sciences, and even the exact sciences. Others, however, see this process as a symptom of the decline of the discipline, reflected in its fragmentation and inability to produce a more or less coherent (or consensual) set of research problems. We could also mention a current of opinion that sees the supposed exhaustion of International Relations as a process that we should not regret, since the evolution of the field would be irremediably associated with a colonial power project that produced unequal and discriminatory world orders. For the latter, the theories of International Relations offer few possibilities for the construction of a critique of world politics and, therefore, would not deserve significant intellectual investment. This view echoes the controversial debate about the 'end of IR theory' waged in the pages of the European Journal of International Relations in 2013 (Dunne, Hansen, and Wight 2013). This declaration of death seems premature, yet the current state of the debate may suggest a fund of truth for pessimistic assessments. Had the 'critical turn' project fallen victim to its own success? Has the drive towards greater theoretical pluralism produced a fragmentation that impedes the evolution of the discipline? Has the critique of the limits of international studies - in particular its supposed universality - compromised our ability to think of the international as a planetary political space? This diffuse dissatisfaction with international theoretical work has a very broad scope, reaching both Anglo-American and continental European academic cultures and the many other continents where research in International Relations is conducted today, testifying to the increasingly ...

This paper elaborates an analytical template to problematize the politics of legal strategies and rights. In the literature, scholars have been arguing that courts have an individualizing effect on collective struggles, or that (human) rights constitute neoliberal subjects. Yet, it is possible to open this theoretical understanding to further complexities: the inclusion of movements into certain governmentalities may have positive effects for their struggle. The discussion follows two main argumentative axes: first, social movements using legal tools and rights language are possibly deploying strategies of 'counter-conducts': exactly because the law is part and parcel of neoliberal governmentalities, it can constitute a strategic element to redirect and subvert established power relationships. Second, rights in the socio-economic domain (e.g. labor, housing and land) have specific properties which work against economic neoliberalism. Following a classic Polanyian argument, the idea of socio-economic rights pulls away these goods from the market domain. This creates difficulties to the capitalist economic system, which is based on a rather strict conception of land and housing as commodities.