1

Paper submitted to the International Studies Association

Annual Convention 2014, New Orleans.

Panel Discussion: Alternative Geographies of Knowledge:

The Adaptation and Re-creation of IR Theories Outside of
the Anglosphere

Not for circulation. Please, do not quote or cite without

the permission from the author.

Jssica Mximo
Institute of International Relations
Pontifcia Universidade Catlica do Rio de Janeiro
E-mail: jessimaximo@gmail.com

International Relations in Brazil: balancing between

mainstream and innovation

Abstract: This paper aims to present the development of Brazilian

understandings of international relations since the early formation of the area
in Brazil until the present day. It seeks to identify the multiple aspects and
characteristics of Brazilian thoughts about IR, which developed in the course
of Brazils political, diplomatic and academic history. To this end, it conducts a
brief historical summary of how Brazilian epistemic communities of IR have

2
developed. It also intends to highlight the historical entanglements between
the development of the area in Brazil with American IR. In this sense, the
paper adopts a postcolonial gaze, mostly inspired by Homi Bhabhas work, in
order to expose the unequal and subordinate (but creative) participation that
Brazilian epistemic communities have in the construction of knowledge about
IR globally. Therefore, this paper discusses how mainstream theories have
been received, adapted, discussed, re-interpreted and hybridized in many
ways in Brazil. It highlights three positions Brazilian intellectuals have taken:
dialogue with the mainstream; dialogue with alternative approaches; and the
search for innovative historical approaches in opposition to the mainstream.

Keywords: International Studies; International Relations Theory; Higher

Education

Initial Remarks

This paper presents the development of Brazilian

understandings of international relations. It seeks to identify the
multiple aspects and characteristics of these ways of thinking,
which have developed throughout Brazilian history. It is also
aimed to highlight the historical intertwining between Brazilian
experience and the dominant experience in the area of
International Relations (the American experience), with the intent
of exposing the subordinated (but creative) participation in the
construction of the area globally. To do so, the paper is divided in
three sections that aim to discuss the state of the field in Brazil.
The first section approaches the beginnings of IR thinking in
Brazil; the second section deals more profoundly with the
academic institutionalization of the area; finally, the third
introduces Brazilian approaches, themes and reflections on the IR
area in Brazil.
This paper uses Postcolonialism as interpretative
perspective of analysis; that is, it reflects on the development of
Brazilian IR through the lenses of Postcolonialism more
specifically, through postcolonial thinkers linked to the third
wave of postcolonial thinking, mostly inspired by Homi Bhabhas
work. As pointed out by Darby and Paolini (1994, p.375), what
unifies the various phases of postcolonial discourse is their focus
on hierarchical relations in, through and beyond the colonial
encounter. The third phase of this discourse moves away from
its Marxist intellectual foundations - which sought colonial
emancipation - and approaches post-structuralism, mainly

3
inspired by Foucault and Derrida in the search of the
ambivalences that constitute practices of domination and
resistance in current and past hierarchical relations (Krishna,
2009; see also Moreno, 2010).
Following Bhabhas work, this paper argues for a different
engagement with (and around) cultural domination that goes
beyond the mere location of the "other" as "the docile body of
difference in power relations (Bhabha, 1994, p.31). In this sense,
it is sought to understand how agency is manifested as
resistance to and as transformation of these hierarchical
relations. In the case presented here, the paper proposes not
only to highlight Brazilian IR as one of the others in IR
theoretical thinking which are so often characterized as a mere
emulation of (North) American IR (Puchala, 1997 apud Turton e
Freire, 2011, p.3) , but also to show the (subordinated) creative
agency (see Kappor, 2008) of Brazilian scholars in the
construction of the field of IR.

First Section
International Relations, as an area of thought, first arouse
in Brazil, in a very incipient manner, when the country broke its
colonial ties with Portugal (in 1822). At that time, Brazilian first
diplomats devoted themselves to think the international and
Brazilian role in it. As Jatob (2013) points out, in the intellectual
tradition of the first hundred years of Brazilian independence, the
language of science was used as a rhetorical instrument of
intellectualized elites to advance a modernizing state project for
a society that was perceived as underdeveloped and lacking in
capable institutions to establish itself as an extension of the
civilized world in tropical lands. Part of this project was carried
out by the thinkers of the modern Brazilian nation who have
studied the international: diplomats. Brazilian diplomats were
often intellectuals who produced knowledge about several
themes regarding state construction and political leadership,
diplomatic activity was just one of their many areas of expertise
as public men (Pinheiro and Vedoveli, 2012).
Thus, the area of International Relations in Brazil has its
background in the intellectual production of the first Brazilian

4
diplomats such as Jos Bonifcio de Andrada e Silva (Cruz and
Mendona, 2010). As stated by Pinheiro and Vedoveli (2012,
p.218-9),
[s]ince the imperial period, public activity and intellectual exercise were the two
parts of the countrys nascent political class, so as to be complementary
instances of their political practice. The highlight of political-intellectual activities,
during the nineteenth century, was reached with the generation of 1870. This
generation saw the rise of the major intellectual diplomats at end of the Empire
and the early Republic (Joaquim Nabuco, Jos Maria da Silva Paranhos Junior,
Manuel de Oliveira Lima, among others), considered by many members of the
corporation as founders of the leading practices associated with the exercise of
modern Brazilian diplomacy. For them, intellectual activity was a practical
constituent of their political activity (diplomacy was a minor activity); in many
cases, their political survival and the success of their projects also depended on
the ability to participate in networks beyond the state sphere, as publishing in
newspapers and magazines, etc.

Even if the formation of Brazilian diplomats had been

established earlier and separately from the institutionalization of
the study of IR in Brazilian academy; Brazilian diplomacy is
inseparable from the creation of IR area more broadly.
The professionalization of the diplomatic corps began with
the establishment of the selection of diplomats by public exam,
in 1931 (already in the republican period of Brazilian history),
which was accompanied by the academization of diplomats, with
the creation of a training institute for the selected at Rio Branco
Institutes exam as part of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Itamaraty. The institute provided the publication of several books
on international themes, inspired by classroom notes and
reflections (as the works of Helio Vianna and Carlos Delgado de
Carvalho). In its womb also emerged, in 1954, the Brazilian
Institute of International Relations (IBRI) and, in 1958, the oldest
Brazilian journal of IR, the Brazilian Journal of International Policy
(RBPI) (Cruz and Mendona, 2010).
At the same time, Brazilian higher educational system was
modernized during the fifteen years of Getlio Vargas presidency
(1930-1945), which aimed to modernize the social, economic and
political structures of the country to create a more urban and
industrial society, through an incipient developmental model
(Jatob, 2013). Thus, the educational reform increased the
technical and applied quality of basic and higher education in the
country. This objective continued throughout the following years,
even after the military coup (in 1964). As Forjaz (1997) observes,
the academic institutionalization of political science in the

5
country took place under the auspices of Brazilian military
regime, which tied higher education to policies for national
economic development (which granted funding for educational
programs). Some international agencies were also of great
importance to the development of political and international
thought in Brazil. Forjaz (1997) also notes that Ford Foundation
stood out then, and also now in some cases, as the essential
financial mainstay of some of the main ventures in the field.
The rea of IR, however, had little part (or a later
participation) in this movement of expansion of Humanities and
Social Sciences in Brazil. Hirst (1992) points out that the limited
relevance of international issues for Brazilian intellectuals - prior
to 1970 - in connection with the predominance of a world view
"self-centered" and isolated from other parts of the world lead to
this "delay" in the institutionalization of the area in the country.
For the author, only when Brazil had a qualitative leap in its
international and regional involvement, the international became
a topic of importance among Brazilian politicians and academics
(Hirst, 1992).

Second Section

During the military authoritarianism in Brazil, government

support for higher education grew and was linked to the success
of Medicis economic miracle (1969-1974) and the modernizing
impulse of Geisels presidency (1974-1979) (Forjaz, 1997).
However, both the practice and the theory of international
relations in Brazil still remained the monopoly of intellectual
diplomats (Miyamoto, 1999). Until the 1970s (despite the existing
literature on the subject, especially in the economic area), there
were few scholars who leaned on the international. As Hirst
(1992) puts it, some of the causes of the slow development of
the area in Brazil (and Latin America as well) were the slow
development of the social sciences as a whole (which so far, was
beginning to take off); the insistence of some academics to
consider IR as synonymous to international law, diplomatic
history or specialized journalism; and the understanding of IR as
an area of knowledge associated with the US hegemonic power
project.

6
Those scholars who distanced themselves from the Hirsts
latter observation did not hesitate to participate in Ford
Foundation1s projects to remedy the shortage of human
resources in the area, such as sponsorship for the exchange of
young professionals to promote the development of the area in
Brazil; but few, in fact, ended up devoting themselves to IR (as
Maria Regina Soares de Lima and Henrique de Souza Novaes)
(Miyamoto, 1999). The only professionals who had diplomas
beyond the masters degree were seeking academic
specialization outside Brazil (in the United States, Britain, France
or Mexico, at the time) (Fonseca, 1987).
The curiosity of these few academics (which emerged in
the area) on the international context in which Brazil was
inserted (characterized by the Cold War, the crisis of US
hegemony, the growth of the trend towards multipolarity in
economic and political fields - see Hirst, 1992; Herz, 2002) and
the understanding of the Brazilian position in world affairs
(Miyamoto, 1999), culminated in the slow creation of
International Relations and International Politics chairs in some
university courses (Miyamoto, 1999). For its privileged location
(being so close to the government and, consequently, the
Foreign Ministry), the University of Brasilia (UNB) has pioneered
several initiatives in the area in Brazil initiating the first IR
Brazilian undergrad course. There was decisive support by the
military government - through the Foreign Ministry for the
consolidation of the course (Jatoba, 2013). The military support
was due to the search for the strengthening of the state and its
capabilities, according to the developmental ideas; in which the
university at that time, played a strategic role (Julian, 2009).
As Political Science was also new in the country, there were
few autonomous departments (of both undergraduate and
graduate school); it was still considered (such as IR) as a subarea of Social Sciences. Nevertheless, those who were involved in
this incipient area, were interested in the internal affairs of the
country; Brazilian Foreign and International Relations or
international relations in general were set aside in the area. This
explains the small number of political scientists working with IR
departments at that time (Miyamoto, 1999).
The gradual end of dictatorship, during the 1970s and
1980s led to the expansion of the IR area in the country: new
institutions, chairs and graduate programs in RI were created

7
then (Miyamoto, 1999). As points out Miyamoto (1999, p.88), it
was already known that [...] Brazil had become known in the
world [...]. Therefore, it could no longer ignore these events, and
also so that the visions [of Brazilian international affairs] were not
restricted to Brazilianists.
The beginning of the economic internationalization, in the
late 1980s, stimulated another expansion in the area, especially
of undergrad programs. Julio (2012) points out that the interest
in this specific course was due to the great appeal that such
training had in the educational and labor market, since the
scenario of Brazilian international insertion pointed grand
viability and need to create professionals and academics able to
monitor and analyze the international dynamics that, every time
more, were disseminated by new information and communication
technologies - such as the Internet and cable TV - and that
"further reinforced the idea that Brazil was globalized" (Julio,
2012, p.30; Cruz and Mendona, 2010).
Thus, from the mid-1990s to the 2000s, there was a great
boom of university courses in the IR area. New journals such as
International Journal Scene, 1998, the magazine Foreign Policy,
established in 1992, and the magazine National Defense; new
specialized newsletters (dedicated to the publication of papers
and economic analysis), such as the International Charter,
Meridian 47, the Via Mundie Network; and new think tanks, such
as the Brazilian Center for International Relations (Cebri), 1998;
complemented the debate in the country (Lessa, 2005a;
Vizentini, 2005a). According to Julio (2009), in 2000 there were
approximately 30 undergraduate courses in IR in Brazil; in 2008,
this number had tripled and turned around 90 courses.
Currently, spread across all regions of Brazil, there are 126
undergrad programs in IR; graduate schools in IR (which also had
its boom in the 2000s) have 12 master's degrees and 6
doctorates. Some graduate programs in Social and Political
Sciences also have research programs in International Politics
and International Relations (Barasuol, 2012; Jatoba, 2013).
The perceived need to create, within the country, increased
awareness of international dynamics has driven several
governmental and civil bodies to establish a locus of research
and debate on international relations. The Brazilian government
has taken numerous initiatives to promote growth in the area in

8
the country. Mainly from the 2000s, several research projects
have been proposed and funded by various government agencies
(such as the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Science and
Technology, the Ministry of Defense). However, even within the
government sphere, International Relations departments were
created in sub-national governments, as states (Rio Grande do
Sul, Santa Catarina etc) and cities (So Paulo, Rio de Janeiro,
Curitiba, Salvador, Belo Horizonte etc). Professional associations
and political parties, as FIESP (Federation of So Paulo State
Industries), CUT (Central Unica dos Trabalhadores) and the PT
(Labour Party) also established or strengthened their
departments and international secretariats (Cruz and Mendona,
2010).
In addition, the academic institutionalization of IR as an
autonomous field of knowledge in Brazil has advanced through
the creation of the Brazilian Association of International Relations
(ABRI), in 2005. The first meeting that would lead to the creation
of ABRI, express that the interest in the contemporary
relationship between Brazil and international politics was the
impetus for the expansion of the area in the country,
consolidating it institutionally.

Third Section

Prior to the academic formalization of the IR area in Brazil,

at the moment when the first Brazilian diplomats took the front in
the international thinking; the most discussed topics, in the
sparse existing work, referred directly to the Brazilian diplomatic
history (Almeida, 1993), to national foreign policy (Vizentini,
2005) and - with the participation of the Brazilian military
establishment to geostrategic and military studies (Miyamoto,
1999; Jatoba, 2013). Among the first, there are diplomatic history
texts, which covers long periods of Brazilian foreign policy, and
others that focus on particular moments of Brazilian diplomatic
history (Herz, 2002). As for the latter, they refer mainly to issues
of the Plata Basin and to reflections on the geopolitics of the
Southern Cone (Miyamoto, 1999); concerned to understand the
structure of the international system and their relative
distribution of power, this geopolitical school - represented by
Golbery do Couto e Silva and Carlos Meira Matos - gained

9
prominence with the rise of military governments in the 60s
(Herz, 2002).
Another approach that resonated between academia and
the Brazilian government, both in the early days of the area and
in its latest development, is the reflection on the peripheral
condition/position of Brazil (and Latin America) vis--vis the
international. As mentioned by Barasuol (2012), authors such as
Caio Prado Jr. sought to understand the Brazilian development
through its position as a colony, as in the 1930s. Subsequently,
the reflections of ECLAC were also useful to understand the
development of the Brazilian insertion as peripheral country in
the capitalist system (Herz, 2002; Barasuol, 2012). The ECLAC
thought came thus to inspire the development of dependency
theory, in the 1970s (see Cardoso and Faletto, 1970; Santos,
1978; Figueiredo, 1978; Herz, 2002).
According to Herz (2002), dependency theory and further
work on interdependence and global systems were part of a more
general trend of challenging the realistic conception of the state
system, which appeared in the center of the academic debate in
the United States at the time. These Brazilian experts have
turned to the analysis of international economic structure; the
process of internationalization of the economy and the
concentration of markets and production (see more in Coutinho,
1977; Coutinho and Belluzzo, 1979; Furtado, 1973; Tavares,
1975; Herz, 2002). This same trend also highlights studies on the
relationship between Latin America and the United States,
concerned about the unequal distribution of resources and the
effects of transnational process on the development of Latin
American countries (see Ianni, 1976; Furtado, 1973; Lafer,
1972a; Martin, 1973; Herz, 2002).
The context of the Cold War was another point that
received the attention of Brazilian intellectuals between the
1970s and 1980s; gaining prominence the conception of the
freezing of world power, developed by the Ambassador Arajo
Castro (1982). Authors such as Helio Jaguaribe and Celso Lafer
also turned to the analysis of the international system power
structure, examined from a "Southern vision", which seeks
autonomy of action for States, in the possible breaches in this
oligarchic system (for instance, Lafer, 1972b; 1982a; 1982b;
1984; Jaguaribe 1977; 1980; Herz, 2002).

10
It is clear, therefore, that, so far, the main topic of interest
in Brazil were the possibilities of international action of the
country through certain interpretations of the international
environment (which sought to overcome the
subordinate/backward status of the country by the modernization
of society, even if the concept of modernization has changed
over time). So much concern with this issue led Fonseca (1987,
cited by Hirst, 1992, p.66) to put that "the Brazilian way of
thinking about international relations is essentially characterized
by the pursuit of understanding the trends and decisions of
Brazilian foreign policy", meaning that "the anguish of
researchers remains close to the decision makers" (Fonseca,
1987, p.273).
The end of the 1980s, on the other hand, presents itself as
a turning point in the area, by the perception that both
environments, domestic and international, had decreased their
rigidity (end of the military dictatorship and the end of the Cold
War), which opened space to discuss topics hitherto opaque in
the area. Studies on human rights have increased from the end
of the dictatorship and the country's adherence to international
human rights treaties (Herz, 2002). Strategic studies and studies
on conflicts, after the end of the Cold War, have left the military
sphere and entered the academy shyly, despite the "Brazilian
strategic marginality to the United States and the absence of a
history of international conflicts in the twentieth century" (Herz,
2002, p.25; Vizentini, 2005a). Studies of specific geographic
areas have decreased their shortcomings and started to occupy a
higher place in the area, as well as regional integration studies
(Herz, 2002; Vizentini, 2005a). Other issues such as globalization
and its cultural aspects, have dialogued with political economy
(Herz, 2002).
It is at this moment that arises in the country a perception
that there had been a qualitative and quantitative leap in
domestic production in IR, to the extent that the return of
specialists, educated abroad, would supply a perceived gap in
Brazilian production in IR in relation to the international
production in the area (Herz, 2002). This perceived gap in the
Brazilian Academy relates mainly to more theoretical reflections
in the area; the 90s presented the moment when Brazilian
Academy finally "reached" the international debate of the area.
The access to debates and paradigms within the discipline is a mark of the 90s,
which resulted from a more intensive interaction with research centers in Europe

11
and the United States, expressed in the coming of visiting professor, in the
comeback of students who completed their studies abroad, and in the
participation of Brazilian researchers in international academic events. The
curricula of graduate courses in international relations, at UNB and PUC-Rio,
were modified, including specifically tailored courses for international relations
theory (Herz, 2002, p.28).

The optimism in relation to the intellectual domestic

production in the 1990s, however, is limited by the perception
that even if the contemporary debates of the area were reached
out, the Brazilian Academy had not actively participated in the
current theoretical debate and little contributed to the
understanding of the ongoing political processes (Herz, 2002).
Even though the vast majority of undergrad programs in IR
currently strongly emphasizes the presentation of the various
theoretical schools of the area (a legacy of the 1990s - see Herz,
2002), they devote little time "to the broader debate on the
formulation of theories and about their use as a tool in the
development of research" (Barasuol, 2012, p.16). This
reverberates in intellectual production (such as theses, papers
and technical reports), which uses little (or none at all)
theoretical framework. Also, when using a theoretical framework
in this production, there is a greater presence of approaches such
as Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism (see more details in
Barasuol, 2012).
Another significant point would be that in IRT chairs, the
reading of the literature produced in the country is rather scarce
(Barasuol, 2012). Obligatory readings of International Relations
Theories chairs of Brazilian undergraduate programs conforms
mostly of classic and contemporary versions of Realism and
Liberalism (53%) (Barasuol, 2012). Other approaches, such as
Constructivism, English School, Marxism, Postmodernism,
Feminism, Critical Theory, Globalization Studies and Foreign
Policy occupy most of the rest of the assigned readings (45%),
leaving only 2% for Latin American thought (Barasuol, 2012).
Despite the pessimism regarding the effective contribution
of the Brazilian Academy to the global debate of the area, the
very focus on Brazilian international relations and interpretations
of the international environment from Brazil already presents a
challenge to the US hegemonic production, a translation that
distorts international understanding coming from the Great
Powers to the lenses of the colony, the periphery etc. They
demand, thus, their capacity as members of the area, of its

12
global dialogue, and their capability to participate in IR through
their own experiences. Therefore, this focus on the teaching of
foreign approaches can be interpreted as an attempt to train
students for this dialogue with the mainstream. However, this
training does not fully reproduces the hegemonic production
because it discusses other issues, with other approaches and
new concepts.
Another possibility of this dialogue search has developed at
PUC-Rio. In their undergraduate degree in RI, PUC-Rio has one of
the biggest requirements for completing credits in IRT in Brazil
(Barasuol, 2012). At the graduate level, IRT disciplines are also
mandatory (as is the case in most graduate courses in IR in
Brazil, after the 1990s). However, the dialogue that PUC-Rio has
maintained with the international production in IR has been
differentiated; mainly for keeping in their faculty international
scholars of alternative approaches to the mainstream (as Rob
Walker, Nicholas Onuf and Stefano Guzzini), but also by
maintaining close contact with other international students
through international seminars, journals and their various interinstitutional research projects (for ex. the BRICS Policy Center,
which maintains dialogue with researchers and academics of the
BRICS countries). In this sense, it could be said that PUC-Rio
seeks to empower themselves to dialogue with the mainstream,
while also searching for the dialogue with alternative approaches
(in this case, ontologically alternative).
However, the disregard for the encouragement of
independent production and for the reading of domestic
production is often regarded as a subservient behavior to the
knowledge produced outside the country. To Jatoba (2013) as
well as to Lessa (2005a), Saraiva (2009), Cervo (2009) and other
scholars of Braslia the use of dominant theories in the area has
happened uncritically, reducing the creative potential of the
Brazilian Academy.
The pedagogical practice that prevails - at least in Brazil, which I believe to know
better for being the place where I work as a teacher - is the simple reproduction
of the dominant theories, judging by the teaching material available in publishing
and in teaching plans which we can find on the internet. This seems to indicate
that this is not, in most cases, even adjustment or conformity, but the mere
uncritical incorporation of theories produced in the US nucleus of IRs (Jatoba,
2013, p.42).

As a result of this perception (i.e., the uncritical reception

of US theories), a recent position within the Brazilian academy

13
has been formed, particularly among these scholars of Brasilia.
This position is opposed to the "epistemological imperialism"
(Saraiva, 2009, p.13) of the theories of International Relations, in
trying to express the values and interests implicitly promoted by
these theories. For these authors, these values and interests
(presented as universal) report specific modes of conduct that
does not serve the interests of much of the world. Thus, they
seek to identify and formulate concepts and approaches in IR
based on the Brazilian experience of international insertion
(Cervo, 2008a; 2008b).
Lessa (2005, p. 11), in this sense, points out that,
[...] if it is not possible to say that the [Brazilian] Academy specialized [in IR] has
been dedicated hard to produce original theoretical models which explain the
international integration of countries like Brazil, it is a fact that, at least, the area
of International Relations History has developed consistently in this direction, to
the point where it is possible to speak of a Brazilian tradition of analyzing
international relations.

This tradition reveals itself in its links with Latin American

theories of International Relations (coming from the ECLAC
thinking and their current inflections) and its central
epistemological problem, namely, the development (as a national
project) (Cervo, 2008b). This project intends to formulate
concepts from the practice of Brazilian international relations and
their reflections on them.
It is latent, however, that this Brazilian tradition of thinking
about international relations from Brazil and for Brazil,
despite being proposed as a historical reading of Brazilian
international insertion projects, is also normative. The Brasilia
tradition of IR turns to the country's development; that is, it
seeks an intellectual production that serves the Brazilian national
development project. They claim a different epistemological
position in IR, one which represents an actor who is marginalized
by traditional theories, which is not a (super or large) power and
is at the bottom of the hierarchy between "developed" countries
and "developing" or "underdeveloped" countries.
This tradition deliberately searches top lace itself as an
opponent or adversary to the mainstream that aims to
emancipate itself from the domination of the American Academy
by creating a new epistemology, from a different site of
enunciation. However, this position shares assumptions from this
dominant grammar, as the conception of the Modern State (or of

14
the Modern Subject) which is able to develop, to modernize itself
through rationality. Therefore, as much as this "Southern
epistemology" seeks to oppose the dominant grammar, this
opposition can never be complete because of their similar
ontological commitments.
In this context, although trying to overcome some of the
limits of the dominant grammar (as the emphasis on the political
and economic hierarchies of the international environment),
others are not questioned, as the lack of concern in historicizing
the state (both the Westphalian State as the Brazilian State);
demonstrated in the reiteration of unquestionable sovereignty of
the Brazilian state or maintaining the obliteration of indigenous
knowledges and ways of life; that are rarely thought through the
lens of IR in Brazil.

Final Remarks

The imperial encounter between the several peoples that

lived in the land now called Brazil and Portugal produced and also
denied identities. In Brazil, local knowledges were practically
decimated along with indigenous and African peoples during the
Portuguese colonial enterprise. After the disruption of the formal
colonial bond between the two countries, what was left of Brazil
was greatly marked by the Anglo-European ways of living and
understanding the world. In this sense, this encounter provoked
negative identities, which were considered "backward", as
regards to their culture, their technological development and
their political institutions. For Brazilians, only foreign knowledge
was considered as "modern" or "advanced" and was to be put to
use in guiding their political system and their economic
development. In result of this major historical entanglement,
Brazil began to reject, silence or erase local knowledges and
sought to develop and achieve the Anglo-European modern ways
of living.
Thus, the institution of IR in Brazil was influenced by this
intellectual framework that sought to transform its society into a
modern state. The development, or the interest in IR, in this
context, became a very important need of governments and
rulers that aimed to lead the country into being a global actor in

15
a modern world. Hence, the first institutions of the area were set
by Vargas, a ruler whose main goal was the modernization of the
country, in order to form intellectuals and, more specifically, to
train diplomats to think the international relations of his country.
This intertwining between academia and diplomacy in knowledge
production in international relations is not exclusively linked to
Brazilian history. As pointed out by Hoffmann (1977), in the case
of the United States, and by Krippendorf (1987), in the case of
European countries, the institutionalization of IR in these places
also went through exchanges between the kitchens of power and
the academic saloons.
Nevertheless, it is noticeable that as the academic
institutionalization of the area matured, it became closer to the
dominant experience in the field, that is, the United States
(which had the largest number of academics, institutions and
financing in the world). Within a context in which the United
States had emerged as a major political and economic power in
the world, its intelligentsia took a center stage and became the
leading model worldwide. As Krippendorf (1987, p.212) puts it (in
his study of the institutionalization of the area in European
countries), what could be more natural and obvious than send
their students to the United States to learn from the Big Brother
and to study and translate US books?.
However, there were also clear attempts of US institutions
in spreading their knowledge around the world through education
and student exchange funding institutions. Several studies show
that there has been a strong presence of American institutions in
the promotion of forums and construction of educational and
research institutions in the IR area globally, specially the Ford
Foundation. As has already been noted by Behera (2004) and
Tickner (2009, 2013, p.633):
the role of the Ford Foundation in training IR specialists,
framing research agendas, strengthening institutional
infrastructures, and creating links between local
scholars and regional and global communities has been
ostensible in regions such as Latin America and South
Asia.

It can be seen, in this context, a US effort in the pursuit of

global recognition of its hegemony in the IR area, in so far as it
seeks to spread their history and their knowledge and actively
participate in building the institutions that make up the area

16
worldwide. Nonetheless, this effort is not accompanied by an
inclusive movement, or even a dialogue, but it is a movement of
differentiation which defines others as mere imitations of its
production (see Puchala, 1997), or as late learners of its universal
teachings (see Wver, 1998; Brown, 2001; Bilgin 2008) or as
irrelevant manifestations of particular experiences (see Aydinli
and Mathews, 2000).
As much as this movement of differentiation (between the
late and inauthentic "rest" of the world and the innovative and
authentic IR area in the US) tries to exalt US superiority in the
area, its hegemony depends on its recognition by the "rest" of
the world, which make signatures of their journals; buy their
books; uses their concepts and approaches; study in their
universities, etc. This recognition of American superiority in the
area (which, as seen above, is sought by the US) is, however,
ambiguous. This ambiguity is revealed both in the attempt to
impose a superiority that must be recognized by the inferior or
negated side of the relationship; or as the downplayed side tries
to learn or to reproduce the superior ways of knowing. That is,
to the extent that the "rest" of the world arrogates to itself the
capacity to produce knowledge as the US produces (working with
the same themes or using the same theoretical approaches), it
ends up questioning (consciously or not) American superiority.

References

ALMEIDA, Paulo Roberto de. 1993. Estudos de Relaes Internacionais

do Brasil: Etapas da produo historiogrfica brasileira, 1927-1992. Revista
Brasileira de Poltica Internacional, n. 1, 1993. 11-36.
BAINES, S. G. As Sociedades Indgenas no Brasil e a Conquista das
Amricas. Revista do CEAM, n. 1, v. 1, 2000.
CARDOSO, Fernando Henrique e FALETTO, Enzo. Dependncia e
Desenvolvimento na Amrica Latina. Rio de Janeiro, Zahar. 1970.
CERVO. Amado Luiz. Concepts of International Relations. In: Concepts,
Histories and Theories of International Relations for the 21st Century:
Regional and National Approaches. SARAIVA, Jos Flvio Sombra (ed.).
Braslia: IBRI. 2009.
COUTINHO, Luciano. Mudanas Recentes na Diviso Internacional do
Trabalho. Editora Contexto, n2, 1977.

17
COUTINHO e BELLUZZO, L. G. O Desenvolvimento do Capitalismo
Avanado e a Reorganizao da Economia Mundial no Ps-Guerra. Estudos
Cebrap, n23, 1979.
FIGUEIREDO, Wilma. Desenvolvimento Dependente Brasileiro. Rio de
Janeiro, Zahar, 1978.
FILGUEIRAS, Luiz. Histria do Plano Real. So Paulo: Boitempo
Editorial, 2000.
FONSECA Jr.,Gelson. Diplomacia e Academia: um estudo sobre as
anlises acadmicas sobre a poltica externa brasileira na dcada de 70 e sobre
as relaes entre o Itamaraty e a comunidade acadmica. Braslia, Fundao
Alexandre de Gusmo, 2011, pp.39-73 e 194-220.
FURTADO, Celso. A Hegemonia dos Estados Unidos e o
Subdesenvolvimento da Amrica Latina. Rio de Janeiro: Civilizao Brasileira,
1973.
HERZ, Mnica. O Crescimento da rea de Relaes Internacionais no
Brasil: In: Contexto Internacional, Rio de Janeiro, v. 24, n.1, pp. 7-40, jan/jun,
2002.
HIRST, Mnica (1992). "Relaes Internacionais no Brasil como rea de
pesquisa". In: MICELI, S. (Org). Temas e problemas de Pesquisa em Cincias
Sociais. So Paulo, IDESP.
IANNI, Otvio. (1976),Imperialismo e Cultura. Petrpolis, RJ, Vozes.

JATOB, Daniel. Los desarrollos acadmicos de las Relaciones

Internacionales en Brasil: elementos sociolgicos, institucionales
y epistemolgicos. Relaciones Internacionales, 22-fev/maio,
2013.
JULIO, Tas Sodrin. A Graduao Em Relaes Internacionais No
Brasil. Revista Mones: Vol. 1 n. 1 UFGD - Jul/Dez 2012.
JULIO, Tas Sodrin. O Brasil no Mundo e o Mundo no Brasil:
A Formao de Quadros, a Produo de Conhecimento e a
Construo da rea de Relaes Internacionais. 2009. 165 p.
Dissertao (Mestrado em Relaes Internacionais) Instituto de
Relaes Internacionais, Universidade de Braslia, 2009.
MIYAMOTO, Shiguenoli. O estudo das Relaes Internacionais no Brasil:
o Estado da Arte. Revista de Sociologia e Poltica. Curitiba, n.12, jun., 1999.
pp.83-98.
PINHEIRO, L. VEDOVELI, P. Caminhos Cruzados: Diplomatas e
Acadmicos na Construo do Campo de Estudos de Poltica Externa Brasileira,
Poltica Hoje, vol. 21, n.1, 2012. pp. 211-254.

18
RIBEIRO, P. R. M. Histria da Educao Escolar no Brasil: notas para
uma reflexo. Paidia. 4, Fev./Jul., 1993.
SARAIVA, Jos Flvio Sombra. Are There Regional and National
Conceptual Approaches to International Relations? In: Concepts, Histories and
Theories of International Relations for the 21 st Century: Regional and
National Approaches. SARAIVA, Jos Flvio Sombra (ed.). Braslia: IBRI. 2009.