Dictatorship, Transition, and the Forging of Political Science in Uruguay - Science in Context (original) (raw)
Related papers
The article compares the history of political science (PS) in Chile and Uruguay in the 1970s and 1980s. Drawing on research that includes 58 interviews with Chilean and Uruguayan scholars and a systematic analysis of the main academic journals of these countries, it shows that important aspects of the Chilean case have not been fully taken into account by the literature. While in Uruguay PS was indeed undermined by the authoritarian government, in Chile key components of the current institutional infrastructure of the discipline were created during, and sometimes by, the dictatorship. The contrast between these two PS trajectories problematizes the linear narrative 'democracy-PS' and provides a more nuanced understanding of the discipline's development(s) as well as of its political nature(s). In the background of this piece there is a theoretical meditation on the relationship between knowledge and power. Resumen: El artículo compara la historia de la ciencia política en Chile y Uruguay en las décadas del 70 y 80. Basándose en una extensa investigación que incluyó 58 entrevistas a politólogos chilenos y uruguayos y el análisis sistemático de las revistas académicas más destacadas de estos países, se demuestra que aspectos relevantes del caso chileno han sido ignorados por la literatura. Mientras que la dictadura uruguaya socavó la ciencia política y la expulsó de las instituciones públicas, en Chile algunos componentes importantes de la actual infraestructura de la disciplina fueron creados durante, y a veces por, la dictadura. El contraste entre estas dos trayectorias problematiza la narrativa lineal 'democracia-ciencia política' y aporta a una comprensión más refinada tanto del desarrollo disciplinar como de la naturaleza política de este saber. El marco general del artículo es una reflexión teórica sobre la relación entre el saber y el poder. Palabras clave: historia de la ciencia política, poder, dictaduras, Chile, Uruguay.
We are interested in problematizing the globally dominant analytical perspectives on democratization, which have mostly originated in English North America and Northern Europe, by way of looking at power relations from within and without political science as a discipline. We argue that such perspectives increasingly show serious shortcomings in explaining past andcurrent realities in Latin America and beyond. They not only analyze “power” but in fact incarnate unequal international power structures. Our analytical exercise is twofold. On the one hand, we engage in the analysis of the politics of political science, looking at the discipline as an object of (political) inquiry. On the other, and as a product of the latter, we propose a new category, namely toxic democracies, as a conceptual tool that might allow for a critical understanding of the international and transnational dimensions of political regimes and their transformations in the so called “Global South.” In other words, the politics of political science assists us in understanding and unpacking the existing biases in the literature on democratization, while toxic democracies performs an analytical intervention that disrupts the power dynamics of our discipline. Once again, epistemology and social research need each other to become effective and critical in their knowledge-production pursuits. Keywords: The Politics of Political Science, Toxic Democracies, Democratization.
Routledge, 2019
In this thought-provoking book, Paulo Ravecca presents a series of interlocking studies on the politics of political science in the Americas. Focusing mainly on the cases of Chile and Uruguay, Ravecca employs different strands of critical theory to challenge the mainstream narrative about the development of the discipline in the region, emphasizing its ideological aspects and demonstrating how the discipline itself has been shaped by power relations. Ravecca metaphorically charts the (non-linear) transit from “cold” to “warm” to “hot” intellectual temperatures to illustrate his—alternative—narrative. Beginning with a detailed quantitative study of three regional academic journals, moving to the analysis of the role of subjectivity (and political trauma) in academia and its discourse in relation to the dictatorships in Chile and Uruguay, and arriving finally at an intimate meditation on the experience of being a queer scholar in the Latin American academy of the 21st century, Ravecca guides his readers through differing explorations, languages, and methods. The Politics of Political Science: Re-Writing Latin American Experiences offers an essential reflection on both the relationship between knowledges and politics and the political and ethical role of the scholar today, demonstrating how the study of the politics of knowledge deepens our understanding of the politics of our times.
The Politics of Political Science: Rewriting Latin American Experiences
2019
In this thought-provoking book, Paulo Ravecca presents a series of interlocking studies on the politics of political science in the Americas. Focusing mainly on the cases of Chile and Uruguay, Ravecca employs different strands of critical theory to challenge the mainstream narrative about the development of the discipline in the region, emphasizing its ideological aspects and demonstrating how the discipline itself has been shaped by power relations. Ravecca metaphorically charts the (non-linear) transit from “cold” to “warm” to “hot” intellectual temperatures to illustrate his—alternative—narrative. Beginning with a detailed quantitative study of three regional academic journals, moving to the analysis of the role of subjectivity (and political trauma) in academia and its discourse in relation to the dictatorships in Chile and Uruguay, and arriving finally at an intimate meditation on the experience of being a queer scholar in the Latin American academy of the 21st century, Ravecca guides his readers through differing explorations, languages, and methods. The Politics of Political Science: Re-Writing Latin American Experiences offers an essential reflection on both the relationship between knowledges and politics and the political and ethical role of the scholar today, demonstrating how the study of the politics of knowledge deepens our understanding of the politics of our times.
Authoritarian Politics and Political Science (Chile 1979-1989)
In most accounts Augusto Pinochet's dictatorship is understood to have impeded the development of political science in Chile. This article seeks to destabilize this understanding by showing that important elements of the infrastructure of the discipline were created during, and sometimes by this authoritarian regime. More concretely, through an in-depth and extensive examination of the political science produced during the Chilean dictatorship, I identify and characterize an institutional and intellectual space that I will call Authoritarian Political Science (APS). The findings challenge the dominant narrative that links the institutionalization of our discipline in Latin America to liberal democracy in a linear fashion, and suggest the need for a nuanced, empirically informed and theoretically dense understanding of political science’s multiple historical trajectories. Trabajo preparado para su presentación en el VIII Congreso Latinoamericano de Ciencia Política, organizado por la Asociación Latinoamericana de Ciencia Política (ALACIP). Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima, 22 al 24 de julio de 2015. Versión reducida en función de los requerimientos editoriales de ALACIP. La versión completa puede consultarse en: http://www.revistacienciapolitica.cl/2015/articulos/nuestra-disciplina-y-su-politica-ciencia-politica-autoritaria-chile-1979-1989/
Our Discipline and its Politics. Authoritarian Political Science - Revista de Ciencia Política
In most accounts Augusto Pinochet's dictatorship is understood to have impeded the development of political science in Chile. This article seeks to destabilize this understanding by showing that important elements of the infrastructure of the discipline were created during, and sometimes by this authoritarian regime. More concretely, through an in-depth and extensive examination of the political science produced during the Chilean dictatorship, I identify and characterize an institutional and intellectual space that I will call Authoritarian Political Science (APS). The findings challenge the dominant narrative that links the institutionalization of our discipline in Latin America to liberal democracy in a linear fashion, and suggest the need for a nuanced, empirically informed and theoretically dense understanding of political science’s multiple historical trajectories. Excerpt: “The exploration of the institutionalization of political science becomes purposeless or –even worse– banal without the analysis of the content and the socio-political role of the discipline. Knowledge is structurally implicated in power relations. Therefore, exploring academic discourses is just another way of studying politics. By expanding the awareness of the impact that context has had on ‘our’ science, this kind of epistemological exercise of self-clarification helps to prevent our academic practice from becoming a mere reflection of the dominant powers of our times, whether they be authoritarian or liberal-democratic”. El análisis desafía la dicotomía entre lecturas materialistas y culturalistas del poder. La disciplina de la ciencia política es entendida aquí como texto que funciona en, y a través de, mecanismos de poder concretos que incluyen políticas públicas que, a su vez, redistribuyen bienes materiales y simbólicos. Economía política y discurso son movilizados para entender la política de la ciencia política.