La Sociología Histórica Internacional y el estudio de la China moderna: un enfoque metodológico

Autores/as

DOI: https://doi.org/10.6018/sh.567261
Palabras clave: China, Sociología histórica Internacional, Historia china, Relaciones Internacionales, Política china

Resumen

Durante las últimas décadas, los estudios sinológicos han experimentado el resurgir del debate sobre qué es China. En este contexto, la literatura convencional estudia la China moderna como un “estado-civilización”, un “estado confuciano-legalista” o un “estado revolucionario revisionista” propenso a cuestionar el sistema liberal internacional liderado por las grandes potencias anglosajonas.  Sin embargo, este tipo de literatura adolece de un internalismo y nacionalismo metodológico. Es decir, la literatura parte del postulado metodológico de que el desarrollo del Estado chino moderno es consecuencia de su desarrollo interno y de las inclinaciones psicológicas e ideológicas de sus lideres. Como consecuencia, la literatura ignora como la China moderna ha sido constituida gracias a la dialéctica entre factores externos geopolíticos y su desarrollo interno. Así pues, en contra de este tipo de literatura, este artículo examina cómo la Sociología Histórica Internacional (SHI), en su vertiente marxista y no-marxista, nos puede asistir a trascender los problemas metodológicos de la literatura dominante, ofreciendo así un enfoque metodológico más holístico del estudio de la China moderna que conecta lo “local” con lo “global”. El principal argumento del artículo está presentado en tres fases. En la primera fase, el texto analiza cómo la literatura convencional ha abordado el estudio de la naturaleza del Estado chino moderno. En la segunda fase, este artículo examina las principales características de la SHI, en su vertiente marxista y no-marxista. Finalmente, el texto aplica la SHI al estudio de la China moderna con la finalidad de abrir nuevas vías de análisis para comprender la China moderna de una forma más holística. Este artículo original busca contribuir a la literatura crítica en lengua hispana sobre la formación de la China moderna, el campo minoritario de la SHI en habla hispana y la relación de la teoría de las Relaciones Internacionales con China.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

ALTHUSSER, L. (1967). Materialismo dialéctico e histórico. Pensamiento Crítico, 5, pp.3–26.

ANIEVAS, A., y NISANCIOGLU, K. (2015). How the West came to rule: the geopolitical origins of capitalism. London: Pluto Press.

ANIEVAS, A. (2016). Confronting Eurocentrism, reductionism, and reification in International Historical Sociology: A reply. International Politics, 53(5), 647-665.

ANIEVAS, A., y MATIN, K. (2016). Historical sociology and world history: uneven and combined development over the longue durée. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

ALLISON, J., y ANIEVAS, A. (2010). The uneven and combined development of the Meiji Restoration: A passive revolutionary road to capitalist modernity. Capital & Class, 34(3), 469-490.

ARNASON, J. (2003). Civilizations in dispute: historical questions and theoretical traditions. Leiden: Brill.

ARNASON, J. (2006). Understanding Intercivilizational Encounters. Thesis Eleven, 86(1), 39-53.

BELL, D.A. (2016) The China model: Political meritocracy and the limits of democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

BENTON, G. (2015). Prophets Unarmed: Chinese Trotskyists in Revolution, War, Jail, And The Return From Limbo. Brill.

BHAMBRA, G. (2011). Historical Sociology, Modernity, and Postcolonial Critique. The American Historical Review, 116(3), 653-662.

BHAMBRA, G. (2014). Connected Sociologies. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

BIELER, A., y MORTON, A. (2018). Global capitalism, global war, global crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

BLOCH, E. (1990). Heritage of our times. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

BUZAN, B., y LAWSON, G. (2015). The Global Transformation History, Modernity and the Making of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

CELLO, L. (2017). Taking history seriously in IR: Towards a historicist approach. Review of International Studies, 44(2), pp.236–251.

CLARKE, M. (2020). Is China Heading Towards Revolutionary Revisionism? [Blog]. Retrieved 13 February 2022, from https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/is-china-heading-towards-revolutionary-revisionism/.

COKER, C. (2019). The Rise of the Civilizational State. Cambridge: Polity.

CHENG, E., y ZHAI, C. (2021). China as a “Quasi-Center” in the World Economic System: Developing a New “Center–Quasi-center–Semi-periphery–Periphery” Theory. World Review Of Political Economy, 12(1), 4-26.

DENISON, E. (2017). Architecture and the Landscape of Modernity in China before 1949. London: Routledge .

DESAI, R. (2013). Geopolitical economy : after US hegemony, globalization and empire. London: Pluto Press ; Halifax, Nova Scotia.

DESAI, R. (2020). The fate of capitalism hangs in the balance of international power. Canadian Dimension. Retrieved 13 February 2022, from https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/the-fate-of-capitalism-hangs-in-the-balance-of-international-power.

DIERCKX, S. (2015). China’s capital controls: Between contender state and integration into the heartland. International Politics, 52(6), 724-742.

DURST, D. (2002). Ernst Bloch's Theory of Nonsimultaneity. The Germanic Review: Literature, Culture, Theory, 77(3), 171-194.

DUZGUN, E. (2018). Against Eurocentric Anti-Eurocentrism: International Relations, Historical Sociology and Political Marxism. Journal Of International Relations And Development, 23(2), 285-307.

Editorial Note (2022). Chinese model offers an alternative from western model with more certainty and quicker decision-making, Global Times. Available at: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202212/1281236.shtml (Accessed: 27 January 2024).

EISENSTADT, S.N. (2000). Multiple Modernities. Daedalus, 129(1), pp.1–29.

FUSARO, L. (2017). Why China is Different: Hegemony, Revolutions and the Rise of Contender States. In M. Ishikura, S. Jeong & M. Li, Return of Marxian Macro-Dynamics in East Asia. Bingley: Emerald Publishing.

GO, J., y LAWSON G. (2017). Global Historical Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

GO, J. (2013). A global-historical sociology of power: on Mann's concluding volumes toThe sources of social power. International Affairs, 89(6), 1469-1477.

GOLDSTEIN, A. (2007). Power transitions, institutions, and China's rise in East Asia: Theoretical expectations and evidence. Journal Of Strategic Studies, 30(4-5), 639-682.

GRAY, K. (2010). Labour and the state in China’s passive revolution. Capital & Class, 34(3), 449-467.

GRAY, K. (2015). Labour and development in East Asia: Social Forces and Passive Revolution. New York: Routledge.

GRAY, K. (2021). China and the philosophy of internal relations. International Relations, 35(1), 183-187.

GONZALEZ PARIAS, C., y Juan Camilo MESA BEDOYA, J. (2016). Multilateralismo Chino, ¿giro hacia el revisionismo?: el caso del BRICS y el G20. In M. Staiano, L. Bogado Bordazar & L. Laura Maira Bono, Estudios sobre la República Popular China: Relaciones Internacionales y Política Interna. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales.

HERRERA, R., y LONG, Z. (2021). ¿Es China Capitalista?. Barcelona: Viejo Topo.

HIGUERAS y RUMBAO, G. (2019). China «todo bajo el cielo». Cuadernos De Estrategia, (200), 87-112.

HOBSON, J. (2002). What's at Stake in 'Bringing Historical Sociology Back into International Relations'? Transcending 'Chronofetishism' and 'Tempcentrism' in International Relations. In J. Hobson & S. Hobden, Historical Sociology of International Relations (pp. 3-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

HOBSON, J., y LAWSON, G. (2008). What is History in International Relations?. Millennium: Journal Of International Studies, 37(2), 415-435.

HUNTINGTON, S.P. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Riverside: Simon & Schuster.

JACQUES, M. (2009). When China Rules the World: The End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order. New York: Penguin Books.

KARL, R. (2002). Staging the World Chinese Nationalism at the Turn of the Twentieth Century. Durham: Duke University Press.

KARL, R. (2019). China's revolutions in the modern world. London: Verso.

KIRSHNER, J. (2010). The tragedy of offensive realism: Classical realism and the rise of China. European Journal of International Relations, 18(1), pp.53–75.

KO, S. (1999). Confucian Leninist State: The People’s Republic of China. Asian Perspective, 23(2), 225-244.

LAWSON, G. (2007). Historical Sociology in International Relations: Open Society, Research Programme and Vocation. International Politics, 44(4), 343-368.

LAWSON, G. (2016). Within and Beyond the “Fourth Generation” of Revolutionary Theory. Sociological Theory, 34(2), 106-127.

LI, M. (2009). The rise of China and the demise of the capitalist world-economy. London: Pluto Press.

LO, B. y SHEVTSOVA, L. (2012) The China Model – in Theory and Practice. rep. Moscow: Carnegie Moscow Center , pp. 31–41.

LOPEZ I VIDAL, L., GONZALEZ-PUJOL, I., y Perez-Mena, F. (2019). Las contribuciones de la Academia china y japonesa en la teoría de las relaciones internacionales Más allá del dominio occidental. UNISCI Journal, 17(51), 331-366.

MARGUELICHE, J. (2018). China y su geopolítica actual: Entre la relectura del pensamiento confuciano y la propuesta del "Sueño Chino". In I Jornadas Platenses de Geografía. Departamento de Geografía, Universidad Nacional de Plata.

MCNALLY, C. (2019). Chaotic mélange: neo-liberalism and neo-statism in the age of Sino-capitalism. Review Of International Political Economy, 27(2), 281-301.

MEARSHEIMER, J.J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

MEARSHEIMER, J.J. (2010). The Gathering Storm: China's Challenge to US Power in Asia. The Chinese Journal Of International Politics, 3(4), 381-396.

MEARSHEIMER, J.J. (2021). The Inevitable Rivalry America, China, and the Tragedy of Great-Power Politics. Foreign Affairs, 100(6), 48-58.

MIZOGUCHI, Y. (2016). The 1911 Revolution: a reassessment. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 17(4), 519-525.

MONTHLY REVIEW. (2021). New Cold War on China. Monthly Review, (73). Retrieved 13 February 2022.

NATALIZIA, G. and TERMINE, L. (2021). Tracing the modes of China’s revisionism in the Indo-Pacific: a comparison with pre-1941 Shōwa Japan. Italian Political Science Review / Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica, [online] 51(1), pp.83–99.

PANDA, J. (2020). China as a Revisionist Power in Indo-Pacific and India’s Perception: A Power-Partner Contention. Journal Of Contemporary China, 30(127), 1-17.

PAULS, R. (2021). Capitalist Accumulation, Contradictions and Crisis in China, 1995–2015. Journal Of Contemporary Asia, 1-29.

PULA, B., y STIVACHTIS, Y. (2010). Historical Sociology and International Relations: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Large-Scale Historical Change and Global Order. Oxford Research Encyclopedia Of International Studies.

PYE, L. (1992). Spirit of Chinese Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

QIN, Y. (2009). Development of International Relations Theory in China. International Studies, 46(1-2), 185-201.

RENTEA, S.E. (2007). The Limits of the Weberian State in International Relations Theory . PhD Dissertation.

REYES M. (2021). Los aportes de la EPI critica de Robert W. Cox: Diálogo y aproximaciones para una agenda de investigación sobre la proyección política del Estado-Civilización Chino. Oikos V., 20(2), 264-285.

ROBERTS, G. (2006). History, theory and the narrative turn in IR. Review of International Studies, 32(4), pp.703–714.

ROSENBERG, J. (1990). What’s the matter with realism? Review of International Studies, 16(4), pp.285–303.

ROSENBERG, J. (2006). Why is There No International Historical Sociology?. European Journal Of International Relations, 12 (3), 307-340.

ROSENBERG, J. (2010). Basic problems in the theory of uneven and combined development. Part II: unevenness and political multiplicity. Cambridge Review Of International Affairs, 23(1), 165-189.

ROSENBERG, J. (2012). The ‘philosophical premises’ of uneven and combined development. Review Of International Studies, 39(3), 569-597.

ROSENBERG, J. (2013). Kenneth Waltz and Leon Trotsky: Anarchy in the mirror of uneven and combined development. International Politics, 50(2), 183-230.

ROSENBERG, J. (2016). International Relations in the prison of Political Science. International Relations, 30(2), 127-153.

ROSENBERG, J. (2017). The elusive international. International Relations, 31(1), 90-103.

ROSENBERG, J. (2019). Trotsky’s error: multiplicity and the secret origins of revolutionary Marxism. Globalizations, 17(3), 477-497.

ROSS J. (2021). China's Great Road: Lessons for Marxist Theory and Socialist Practices. Glasgow: Praxis Press.

SALGADO, P. (2019). Agency and geopolitics: Brazilian formal independence and the problem of Eurocentrism in international historical sociology. Cambridge Review Of International Affairs, 33(3), 432-451.

SHERMAN, H. (1976). Dialectics as a Method. Insurgent Sociologist, 6(4), pp.57–64.

SKOCPOL, T. (1979). States and Social Revolutions A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

TESCHKE, B. (2009). The Myth of 1648 Class, Geopolitics, and the Making of Modern International Relations. London: Verso.

TESCHKE, B. (2014). IR theory, historical materialism, and the false promise of international historical sociology. Spectrum: Journal Of Global Studies, 6(1), 1-66.

TEUBNER, G. and QI, C. (2014). Multiple Modernities: An Alternative to Western Economists? Recommendations for China’s Private Law. Peking University Law Journal, 1(2), pp.391–414.

TURGEON, N. (2015). Revisiting Imperial China’s Trajectory in the Context of the 'Rise of the West'. The Eurocentric Legacy in Historical Sociology. (PhD). University of Sussex.

TUYLOGLU, Y. (2021). Rewiring unevenness: the historical sociology of late modernization beyond the west/east duality. Cambridge Review Of International Affairs, 1-18.

VAN DER PIJL, K. (1998). Transnational classes and international relations. London: Routledge.

VAN DER PIJL, K. (2006). Global rivalries from the Cold War to Iraq. London: Pluto.

VAN DER PIJL, K. (2007). Nomads, empires, states modes of foreign relations and political economy. Volume 1. London: Pluto Press.

VAN DER PIJL, K. (2010). Historicising the International: Modes of Foreign Relations and Political Economy. Historical Materialism, 18(2), pp.3–34.

VAN DER PIJL, K. (2012). Is the East Still Red? The Contender State and Class Struggles in China. Globalizations, 9(4), 503-516.

VOGEL, E. (2019). China And Japan: Facing History. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

WANG, H. (2014). China from Empire to Nation-State. Harvard University Press.

WANG, F. (2017). The China Order: Centralia, World Empire, and the Nature of Chinese Power. State University of New York Press.

WEI, P. (2011) ‘Reflections on the “China model” discussion’, International Critical thought, 1(1), pp. 11–17.

WYRTZEN, J. (2020). For a (comparative?) global historical sociology. Cambridge Review Of International Affairs, 33(6), 896-901.

ZHAO, D. (2015). The Confucian-Legalist State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

ZHANG, W. (2012). China Wave: The Rise of a Civilizational State. Singapore: World Century Publishing Corporation.

(COP15) Enfoque de Xi: Civilización ecológica ilumina camino hacia futuro sostenible. Xinhua. (2021). Retrieved 14 February 2022, from http://spanish.news.cn/2021-10/15/c_1310245559.htm.

Publicado
22-03-2024
Cómo citar
Pérez Mena, F. (2024). La Sociología Histórica Internacional y el estudio de la China moderna: un enfoque metodológico. Sociología Histórica, 13(1), 139–168. https://doi.org/10.6018/sh.567261