02/08/2016 Américas 0
Mundorama
International relations studies and
analyzes foreign policy in Latin America during much of the first half of the
twentieth century were dominated by the influence of international law and the
visions of diplomatic history. The first scientific analytical approach was
structuralism, based on the thought Prebisch-ECLAC. From there a debate between
the new influences of American thought in international relations and the
efforts of Latin American thinkers to study international relations from the
perspective of political economy. In some ways, this debate, after sixty years,
still continues. The drafting of a Latin American line of thinking on
international affairs also had to face the influence of –and dependence on –
foreign (mainly Anglo Saxon) theoretical and methodological reflections.
Authors from within and outside the
region note that this is an issue of concern to any policy making that aim at a
more autonomous international insertion. In Latin America there are currently
three major lines of work on thinking in international affairs. The first one,
whether having an own thinking in order to interpret reality and nature
of the international insertion from our own perspectives make any sense; the
second one is about the appropriateness of applying theories that are produced
by the epistemic thinking of the “North” in the interpretation of the
international system and in the analysis of foreign policy, given its higher
level of sophistication; and the third issue is whether the theory produced in
the core countries should be replaced by concepts developed by Latin
American epistemology, according to the idea that they would better explain the
nature of our foreign relations. In recent years there has been an interesting
discussion between those who consider the use of theoretical and methodological
tools from schools and lines of Anglo-Saxon thinking is right and positive, and
those who rather consider that theoretical, epistemological, conceptual and
methodological tools produced in Latin America should be used.
In Argentina, the socio-historical,
structuralist political economy, and autonomic lines of interpretation
participate, and in Brazil, with a predominance of history are the main
representatives of the second group, in which influences of the English and
French schools of international relations are also observed. Among the main
criticisms that this group addresses the followers of Anglo-Saxon theories, it
is argued that the US theory –for example, realism and idealism- replace the
historical investigation of the facts for prescriptions and foundations of the
theory. The authors who followed this line subsequently argued that the theory
produced in intellectuals scenarios outside the region, when being incorporated
in the interpretation of international relations in Latin America, reproduced
the dominant ideology of the producing sources, and therefore an analysis of
the international insertion and foreign policy from our own interpretations was
needed, thus rejecting the theories developed in the core and implementing
concepts that would enable substantiate and explain foreign policy.
In this debate, scholars influenced
by the conventional American thought, criticize Latin American production
because they assume that it does not claim to universality.
There are two errors in the view of
academics who follow only American thought. The first is to believe that Latin
American contributions do not claim to universality, which is false if we
review structuralist ideas, the exemplary construction core-periphery (updated
the global system at the stage of capitalism of the 1970s by Arrighi, and
Wallerstein, which added to the semi-periphery analysis) and interest for
autonomy against the hegemonic power, which is a concern with global reach. The
second mistake is to assume that those who follow the political economy
approach reject the entire American theoretical thought, which is also false,
because many authors take the “institutionalism” and “constructivism” to better
understand processes of international cooperation and integration economic and
regionalism.
In the current context of
international processes and against the rise of China as a great power, but
especially by the structure of economic, trade, financial and political
relations between the powerful and Latin America, the Latin American thought
precedent still has much to contribute to better understand the new realities
between the rising centers and peripheries and semi-peripheries. This also
extends to the understanding of relations between the hegemonic power and
decision-making autonomy. Recent Latin American contributions contribute to this
goal, with new concepts, analytical categories, theoretical reflections and
methodological contributions.
The transition from economic
hegemony between new “cores” and the old peripheries, and the challenges
imposed by the new political and security of the international system point out
that the search for new theoretical and methodological approaches should follow
scenarios to be a priority for analysts in international relations. Because all
the international dynamics it leads to a permanent challenge between change and
continuity.
This is the discussion presented in
the article Contemporary
Latin American thinking on International Relations: theoretical, conceptual and
methodological contributions , published in the issue
1/2016 (Volume 59, N. 1) of the Revista
Brasileira de Política Internacional.
Read the
article:
BERNAL-MEZA,
Raúl. Contemporary
Latin American thinking on International Relations: theoretical, conceptual and
methodological contributions. Rev. bras. polít. int. [online]. 2016,
vol.59, n.1, e005.
Contact:
Raúl Bernal-Meza – Universidad
Arturo Prat, Instituto de Estudios Internacionales, Santiago, Chile
(bernalmeza@hotmail.com).
