International Relations in Argentina: historical roots and theoretical contributions

MELISA DECIANCIO

Conferencia; British International Studies Association Annual Conference; 2021

This chapter explores and analyses the process of constitution of the International Relations field in Argentina, with a twofold objective. On the one hand, examines the origins of the field in Argentina from a historical perspective, in order to investigate its evolution and how its own historical trajectory marked the development of the field in modern times. In addition, it underlines the specific theoretical and methodological endeavours of Argentine IR in order to establish how the field managed to gain density and gradually establish its own boundaries among other disciplines. Last but not least, it intends to identify the contributions of Argentine IR field to a more universal and inclusive IR study that allows to delineate a broader-non-western IR agenda With these goals in mind, the work addresses argentine IR history through the observation and analysis of different approaches that converge in the constitution of distinctive knowledge on international affairs. Such distinctiveness is a result of the various fields from which international thought was nurtured. They are International Law, Diplomacy, Geopolitics, Political Economy and Foreign Policy Analysis. Each of them marked the constitution of the field and its process of autonomization and institutionalization. Following Bourdieu?s study on scientific fields, this work answers the question on how the field has been shaped, and how was the historical process of autonomization and internal differentiation that has allowed the discipline to legitimize itself as such in our country. From the observation and analysis of a number of components, it addressed the way its subject of study was outlined, through the contribution of agents of knowledge production and areas of specialized knowledge involved in the process. The period carved out for analysis goes from the 1889 with the First Pan-American Conference in Washington DC, which triggered intense public debate in the country on how to participate in world affairs. The period of analysis ends in 1990 when IR discipline was clearly considered an autonomous field of study. This temporal selection does not imply that the work follows a chronological and lineal path. Instead it will consider and flesh out the ?strong moments? of the complex, multidimensional and never lineal process of institutionalization of a field. As a result, it identifies the different arenas of struggle, where various forces are opposed seeking internal legitimacy. Understanding these spaces as part of an internal struggle doesn?t imply a tacit confrontation but a series of dilemmas that emerge from the process of legitimizing and defining the field.