Los críticos de lo crítico: una defensa de la razón posestructuralista en la teoría de relaciones internacionales (Otros Temas)

Este artículo presenta una defensa de lo que podemos denominar la “razón posestructural” en la teoría de las relaciones internacionales. Particularmente, centraremos nuestra atención en tres argumentos críticos comúnmente vertidos contra el posestructuralismo: el de la crítica vacía, la negación de la realidad y el del relativismo. El argumento que este ensayo defiende es que dichas críticas se concentran no en lo que el posestructuralismo dice, sino en aquello que este se niega a decir y para hacerlo recurre a una inútil reiteración de sus propios postulados teóricos. El análisis que llevaremos a cabo le presta especial atención a por qué el posestructuralismo circunscribe posiciones fundacionalistas y al hacerlo enfatizaremos y explicaremos varios de los caminos teóricos que este se rehúsa a tomar.This paper presents a defense of postructuralism in International Relations (IR) theory. I particular, I focus on three specific assertions made against this approach: the empty critique and the anti-realist (reality-denying) claim and the relativism argument. More specifically, I argue that these common criticisms focus not on what the approach actually says, but on what it refuses to say, and in doing so often engage in a fruitless reiteration of their own theoretical postulates. My analysis places special attention on poststructralism’s circumvention of foundational positions in IR theorizing and the way in which the critiques addressed here fail to capture the reasons for and results of this argumentative choice. In this sense, I also maintain that much of what is useful in poststructural analyses rests not only in what they say, but also in the theoretical paths they evade

Towards a Theoretical Understating of How to Study the State: Governmentality, Power and Governmental Regimes

Artículo teórico que se origina a partir de un proyecto más amplio que investiga la construcción del Plan Nacional del Buen Vivir 2013-2017 (PNBV 2013-2017) en Ecuador. Su primordial preocupación teórica es responder a la siguiente pregunta: cómo estudiar los procesos de formación del Estado en Ecuador desde el año 2008. El documento responde a esta amplia cuestión argumentando, a nivel general, que el Estado se reproduce en parte mediante la creación de espacios donde efectivamente puede intervenir en la sociedad. Este trabajo se refiere, por lo tanto, con el examen de las formas particulares en que los Estados penetran la sociedad a través de regímenes gubernamentales. En términos más específicos, este trabajo sostiene que los procesos de intervención del Estado pueden ser ampliamente entendidos por la observación de tres procesos complementarios e interrelacionados: a. La forma en la que el Estado busca legitimar su presencia en la sociedad; b. Prácticas gubernamentales: las formas en las que el Estado aprende, organiza, distribuye y en última instancia crea campos específicos de intervención; c. El ejercicio de diferentes y complementarias modalidades de poder. En base a los citados elementos analiza la construcción de un "régimen gubernamental".This is a theoretical paper that originates from a larger project that investigates the construction of the Plan Nacional del Buen Vivir 2013-2017 (PNBV 2013-2017) in Ecuador. Its overriding theoretical concern is to answer the following question: how to study processes of state formation in Ecuador since 2008. The paper answers this broad question by arguing, at a general level, that the state reproduces itself partly by effectively creating spaces where it can intervene in society. This work is concerned, thus, with looking at the particular ways in which states penetrate society through governmental regimes. In more specific terms, this work argues that processes of state intervention can be broadly understood by looking at three complementary and interrelated processes: a. The formation of narratives about the state seeking to legitimize its presence in society; b. Governmental practices: the ways in which the state apprehends, organizes, distributes and ultimately creates specific fields of intervention; c. The exercise of different and complementary modalities of power, including governmental and disciplinary forms of power. I call the combined operation and functioning of these elements the construction of a “governmental regime.

The Totalizing and Silencing Features of Meta‐Narratives and Master Concepts

This paper is organized in the following way. First I deal with Hardt’s and Negri’s Empire; the second section of the paper focuses on Beck´s World Risk Society; the third main section of this paper tackles the functional differentiation argument posed by Buzan and Albert. By way of conclusion, the final section of this paper briefly discusses alternatives to grand-narratives and master concepts

Feminism and IR and the Conditions for Critical Dialogue

My objective in this paper is to problematize the call for dialogue and engagement between feminists and non-feminist International Relations (IR) scholars. I will concentrate on two pieces of scholarship to discuss the issue of dialogue: first, Robert Keohane’s “Beyond Dychotomies: Conversations between International Relations and Feminist Theory’s” (Keohane, 1998); and second, Anne Tickner’s (1997) “You Just don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements between Feminists and IR Theorists.” In both pieces the question of dialogue is of most importance

Ecuador Today

Ecuador is a country that arouses interest in its current situation. After an economic boom, it is now going through a severe crisis. At the end of a decade of an authoritarian government identifying itself with “21st century socialism”, human rights and freedom of expression abuses are being exposed. As the facts are being laid bare, an entire system of abuse of power and corruption from the government is emerging. The present work brings together various papers focusing on these realities. They tackle several aspects of the country’s context today and in the immediate past: poverty, economic changes, political power and its relationship to social movements, extractivism and its impacts, art and literature. Despite interest in this subject, the literature on Ecuador’s realities is quite scant. That is why we hope the present publication will contribute meaningfully to further knowledge about the country