Publication: Reflexividad, emancipación y universalismo: cartografías de la teoría de las Relaciones Internacionales
Loading...
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2018-07
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Asociación de Profesores de Derecho Internacional y Relaciones Internacionales
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
Desde su giro post-positivista de los años ochenta del siglo xx, la teoría y la disciplina de las Relaciones Internacionales se ha tornado más plural y diversa, y su cartografía se puede trazar a partir de tres ejes o líneas de tensión: la primera, de índole epistemológica, tiene al racionalismo y al reflectivismo radical como polos extremos, con un terreno intermedio en el que se sitúa el constructivismo social, como racionalismo moderado, o la teoría crítica neo-gramsciana; el segundo eje, de índole praxeológico-normativo, se organiza en torno a la posibilidad y deseabilidad del cambio; el tercero gira en torno a la definición de lo universal frente a la diversidad, y la posibilidad o negación de un universalismo postoccidental. En esas tres divisorias, a su vez, subyace un eje de tensión entre fundacionalismo y antifundacionalismo, tanto en el ámbito epistemológico como normativo
Since his post-positivist turn of the Eighties of the 20st Century, both the theory and discipline of International Relations has become more plural and diverse, and its cartography can be drawn from three axes or lines of tension: the first one, in the epistemological realm, has radical rationalism and reflectivism, as moderate rationalism, and neo-Gramscian critical theory in the middle ground; the second axis, of praxeological-normative nature, is organized around the possibility and desirability of change; the third one address the definition of universality versus diversity, and the possibility or negation of a post-Western universalism. All of them also entail divergences between foundationalism and anti-foundationalism, both in the epistemological and normative realm.
Since his post-positivist turn of the Eighties of the 20st Century, both the theory and discipline of International Relations has become more plural and diverse, and its cartography can be drawn from three axes or lines of tension: the first one, in the epistemological realm, has radical rationalism and reflectivism, as moderate rationalism, and neo-Gramscian critical theory in the middle ground; the second axis, of praxeological-normative nature, is organized around the possibility and desirability of change; the third one address the definition of universality versus diversity, and the possibility or negation of a post-Western universalism. All of them also entail divergences between foundationalism and anti-foundationalism, both in the epistemological and normative realm.