{"title":"皮埃尔·布迪厄:《国际关系中的殖民经验与方法论反思》","authors":"Leonie Holthaus","doi":"10.1093/ips/olaf013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article asks what reflexive practices one can learn from, with and against Pierre Bourdieu’s works on and in Algeria and later contributions. Addressing the question enables a revision of Bourdieusian reflexivity and a new contribution to the methodological reflexivity debate in international relations (IR) and International Political Sociology (IPS). It furthers the identification of three reflexive practices: avoidance of theoretical and conceptual fetishism, methodological experimentation and operationalization of methodological polytheism, or what is often called multi-method research, and alternations between engaged research and critical distancing; it is often forgotten that Bourdieu’s research encourages assumptions of epistemic asymmetry and suspicion of power struggles and emotionally engaged research. I include examples of how the practices can be performed from current IR and sociology to enhance the pedagogical value of this intervention. Even if the practices originated in colonial research situations privileging researchers from colonizing societies, the examples show that researchers with different positions can use the practices if they mind varying patterns of symbolic violence. In the tradition of Bourdieu’s early research and considering research I am familiar with, I selected examples dealing with “Global South” themes or themes evolving in the researcher’s own milieu.","PeriodicalId":47361,"journal":{"name":"International Political Sociology","volume":"55 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pierre Bourdieu, Colonial Experiences, and Methodological Reflexivity in International Relations\",\"authors\":\"Leonie Holthaus\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ips/olaf013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article asks what reflexive practices one can learn from, with and against Pierre Bourdieu’s works on and in Algeria and later contributions. Addressing the question enables a revision of Bourdieusian reflexivity and a new contribution to the methodological reflexivity debate in international relations (IR) and International Political Sociology (IPS). It furthers the identification of three reflexive practices: avoidance of theoretical and conceptual fetishism, methodological experimentation and operationalization of methodological polytheism, or what is often called multi-method research, and alternations between engaged research and critical distancing; it is often forgotten that Bourdieu’s research encourages assumptions of epistemic asymmetry and suspicion of power struggles and emotionally engaged research. I include examples of how the practices can be performed from current IR and sociology to enhance the pedagogical value of this intervention. Even if the practices originated in colonial research situations privileging researchers from colonizing societies, the examples show that researchers with different positions can use the practices if they mind varying patterns of symbolic violence. In the tradition of Bourdieu’s early research and considering research I am familiar with, I selected examples dealing with “Global South” themes or themes evolving in the researcher’s own milieu.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47361,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Political Sociology\",\"volume\":\"55 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Political Sociology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olaf013\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Political Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olaf013","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Pierre Bourdieu, Colonial Experiences, and Methodological Reflexivity in International Relations
This article asks what reflexive practices one can learn from, with and against Pierre Bourdieu’s works on and in Algeria and later contributions. Addressing the question enables a revision of Bourdieusian reflexivity and a new contribution to the methodological reflexivity debate in international relations (IR) and International Political Sociology (IPS). It furthers the identification of three reflexive practices: avoidance of theoretical and conceptual fetishism, methodological experimentation and operationalization of methodological polytheism, or what is often called multi-method research, and alternations between engaged research and critical distancing; it is often forgotten that Bourdieu’s research encourages assumptions of epistemic asymmetry and suspicion of power struggles and emotionally engaged research. I include examples of how the practices can be performed from current IR and sociology to enhance the pedagogical value of this intervention. Even if the practices originated in colonial research situations privileging researchers from colonizing societies, the examples show that researchers with different positions can use the practices if they mind varying patterns of symbolic violence. In the tradition of Bourdieu’s early research and considering research I am familiar with, I selected examples dealing with “Global South” themes or themes evolving in the researcher’s own milieu.
期刊介绍:
International Political Sociology (IPS), responds to the need for more productive collaboration among political sociologists, international relations specialists and sociopolitical theorists. It is especially concerned with challenges arising from contemporary transformations of social, political, and global orders given the statist forms of traditional sociologies and the marginalization of social processes in many approaches to international relations. IPS is committed to theoretical innovation, new modes of empirical research and the geographical and cultural diversification of research beyond the usual circuits of European and North-American scholarship.