Teoria das relações internacionais: a pluralidade absoluta e a pluralidade relativa da disciplina

International relations theory: the absolute plurality and the relative plurality of the discipline

Autori

  • Daniel Costa Gomes Universidade de Brasília (UnB)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5752/P.1809-6182.2016v13n3p196

Parole chiave:

teoria das relações internacionais, evolução, pluralidade

Abstract

O presente trabalho é um estudo sobre a disciplina Teoria das Relações Internacionais. Tem-se por objetivo analisar a evolução da disciplina, de modo a verificar se a difusão de cursos de Relações Internacionais em países periféricos tem sido acompanhada pela emergência de novas teorias, de novas perspectivas em relação ao conhecimento científico e de novas formas de se ensinar a disciplina. Para auferir isso, o artigo é dividido em duas partes, em que se analisam, respectivamente, a narrativa tradicional e as novas narrativas na disciplina. Foram formulados dois conceitos: pluralidade absoluta (critério quantitativo) e pluralidade relativa (critério qualitativo). Duas conclusões principais são alcançadas. A primeira: numericamente, a disciplina Teoria das Relações Internacionais se tornou mais plural, em decorrência do surgimento de teorias, de cursos de graduação, de programas de pós-graduação e de periódicos especializados. Assim, constata-se pluralidade absoluta. A segunda conclusão: a diversidade, conceituada como pluralidade relativa, ainda não se consolidou na disciplina. Afinal, as novas teorias geralmente constituem variantes dos mesmos matizes, a língua inglesa continua a dominar nos livros e nos periódicos, as grades curriculares apresentam poucas variações, as novas formas de pensar as Relações Internacionais normalmente são consideradas não científicas.

Downloads

I dati di download non sono ancora disponibili.

Biografia autore

Daniel Costa Gomes, Universidade de Brasília (UnB)

Instituto de Relações Internacionais (IREL)

Área de Concentração: História das Relações Internacionais

Linha de Pesquisa: História da Política Exterior do Brasil

 

Riferimenti bibliografici

ACHARYA, A. Global International Relations and regional worlds: a new agenda for international studies. International Studies Quarterly, v. 58, p. 647-659, 2014.

ACHARYA, A.; BUZAN, B. Why is there no non-Western international theory? And introduction. In: ACHARYA, A.; BUZAN, B (org.). Non-Western International Relations theory: perspectives on and beyond Asia, p. 1-26, 2010.

BALDWIN, D. (ed.). Neorealism and neoliberalism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.

BECHARA, E. Moderna gramática portuguesa. 37. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira, 2009.

BEHERA, N. Re-imagining IR in India. In: ACHARYA, A.; BUZAN, B. (org.). Non-Western International Relations theory: perspectives on and beyond Asia, p. 92-116, 2010.

BLANEY, D.; TICKNER, A. Introduction: thinking difference. In: BLANEY, D.; TICKNER, A (ed.). Thinking International Relations Differently. New York and London: Rouledge, 2012.

BLANEY, D.; TICKNER, A. Introduction: claiming the international beyond IR. In: BLANEY, D.; TICKNER, A. (ed.). Claiming the international: worlding beyond the West series. London and New York: Routledge, p. 1-24, 2013.

BROWN, C.. The poverty of Grand Theory. European Journal of International Relations, v. 19, n. 3, p. 483-497, 2013.

CHEKURI, C. Becoming nãyaka: sovereignty and ethics inthe Tanjãvuri Ãndhra Rãjula Caritra. In: BLANEY, D.; TICKNER, A. (ed.). Claiming the international: worlding beyond the West series. London and New York: Routledge, p. 61-77, 2013.

COX, R. Social forces, states and world order: beyond IR theory. Millennium: Journal of International Politics, v. 10, n. 2, p. 126–155, 1983.

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

FINNEMORE, M,; SIKKINK, K. Taking stock: the constructivist research program in International Relations and Comparative Politics. Annual Review Political Science, v. 4, p.391-416, 2001.

HOBSON, J. The eurocentric conception of world politics: Western International Theory, 1760–2010. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

HOFFMANN, S. An American Social Science: International Relations. Daedalus, v. 106, n. 3, p. 41-60, 1977.

GUZZINI, S. Power, realism and constructivism. London an New York: Routledge, 2013a.

GUZZINI, S. The ends of International Relations theory: stages of reflexivity and modes of theorizing. European Journal of International Relations, v. 19, n. 3, p. 521-541, 2013b.

JACKSON, P.; NEXON, D. Paradigmatic faults in international-relations theory. International Studies Quarterly, v. 53, p. 907-930, 2009.

KEOHANE, R. International institutions: two approaches. International Studies Quarterly. V. 32, n. 4, p. 379-396, 1988.

KEOHANE, R. Beyond dichotomy: conversations between International Relations and feminist theory. International Studies Quarterly, v. 42, n. 1, p. 193-197, 1998.

KEOHANE, R. Twenty years of institutional liberalism. International Relations, v. 26, n. 2, p. 125-138, 2012.

KEOHANE, R.; MARTIN, L. The promise of institutionalist theory. International Security, v. 19, n. 1, p. 39-51, 1995.

LAKE, D. 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, v. 19, n. 3, p. 567-587, 2013.

LAPID, Y. The third debate: on the prospects of international theory in post-positivist era. International Studies Quartely, v.33, n. 3, p. 235-254, 1989.

LING, L. The Dao of world politics: towards a post-Westiphalian, worldist International Relations. London and New York: Routledge, 2014.

MEARSHEIMER, J. The false promise of international institutions. International Security, v. 19, n. 3, p. 5-49, 1994-1995.

NEUMANN, I. Claiming the eraly state for the relational turn: the case of Rus' (ca 800-1100). In: BLANEY, D.; TICKNER, A. (ed.). Claiming the international: worlding beyond the West series. London and New York: Routledge, p. 78-97, 2013.

NOGUEIRA, J. P.; MESSARI, N. Teoria das relações internacionais. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier, 2005.

ONUF, N. Making sense, making worlds. Constructivism in social theory and international relations. London and New York: Routledge, 2013.

RAMOS, L. Some critical reflections on Charles Glaser and the neo-neo synthesis. Estudos Internacionais. v. 1, n. 2, jul-dez, p. 319-328, 2013.

REUS-SMIT, C. Beyond metatheory? European Journal of International Relations, v. 19, n. 3, p. 589-608, 2013.

RUGGIE, J. The false premise of realism. International Security, v. 20, n. 1, p. 62-70, 1995.

SMITH, S. Singing our world into existence: International Relations theory and September 11. International Studies Quarterly, v. 48, p. 499-515, 2004.

SNYDER, J. One world, many theories. Foreign Policy, n. 145, p. 52-62, 2004.

STEANS, J. Global governance: a feminist perspective. In: HELD, D.; MCGREW, A. (ed.). Governing globalization: power, authority and global governance. Oxford: Polity Press, 2002.

TADJAKHSH, S. International Relations theory and the Islamic worldview. In: ACHARYA, A.; BUZAN, B. (org.). Non-Western International Relations theory: perspectives on and beyond Asia, p. 174-196, 2010.

TICKNER, A. Hans Morgenthau's principles of political realism: a feminist reformulation. In DER DERIAN, J. (ed.). International theory: critical investigations. New York: New York University Press, p. 53-71, 1995.

TICKNER, A. You just don't understand: troubled engagements between feminists and IR theory. International Studies Quarterly, v. 41, p. 611-632, 1997.

TICKNER, A. Core, periphery and (neo)imperialist International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, v. 19, n. 3, p. 627-646, 2013a.

TICKNER, A. By the way of conclusion: forget IR? In: BLANEY, D.; TICKNER, A. (ed.). Claiming the international: worlding beyond the West series. London and New York: Routledge, p. 214-232, 2013b.

TICKNER, A.; WAEVER, O. Introduction: geocultural epistemologies. In: TICKNER, A.; WAEVER, O. (org.). International Relations scholarship around the world, p. 1-31, 2009.

WEAVER, O. The rise and fall of the inter-paradigm debate In: SMITH, S. (ed.). International theory: positivism and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

WAEVER, O. Figures of international thought: introducing persons instead of paradigms. In: NEUMANN, I.; WAEVER, O. The future of international relations: master in the making? London: Routledge, 1997.

WALT, S. International relations: one world, many theories. Foreign Policy, n 110, p. 29-32 + 34-46, 1998.

WALTZ, K. Realism and international politics. New York and London: Routledge, 2008.

WENDT, A. Anarchy is what States make of it: the social construction of power politics. International Organization, v. 46, n. 2, p. 391-425, 1992.

WENDT, A. Constructing international politics. International Security, v. 20, n. 1, p. 71-81, 1995.

Pubblicato

2017-01-23

Come citare

Gomes, D. C. (2017). Teoria das relações internacionais: a pluralidade absoluta e a pluralidade relativa da disciplina: International relations theory: the absolute plurality and the relative plurality of the discipline. Conjuntura Internacional, 13(3), 196–216. https://doi.org/10.5752/P.1809-6182.2016v13n3p196