Pablo Barnier-Khawam

Cet article propose un retour d’expérience sur les stratégies d’adaptation et les apprentissages qui ont permis à dix doctorant.es du Centre de recherches internationales (CERI, CNRS/Sciences Po) de poursuivre leurs recherches après l’instauration des mesures liées à la crise sanitaire du Covid-19. Malgré des méthodes et des terrains variés, nos recherches, tant sur la forme que sur le fond, ont été radicalement affectées par la pandémie. Nous montrons comment la conduite d’une recherche doctorale “sans contact” nous a poussés à développer des méthodes alternatives de récolte des données, à reformuler nos questions de recherche et à modifier nos objets d’analyse. Selon nous, la recherche qualitative à distance conduit à opérer un recentrement épistémologique, tant géographique qu’institutionnel. Elle détourne également le regard des chercheurs et chercheuses des acteurs et actrices non connecté.es ainsi que des pratiques informelles. Nous interrogeons enfin la dimension heuristique de ces “bricolages” méthodologiques, en réalité contingents à toute recherche en sciences sociales, et la valeur épistémologique de ces méthodes alternatives en proposant une formalisation de celles-ci.

A field once dominated by rationalist assumptions, grand strategy is beginning to make room for alternatives approaches. Recently, scholars have drawn on discourse theory to explore how narratives influence the directionality of grand strategy. Others have emphasized the importance of ideology as a driver of grand strategy, but have failed to specify how ideology interacts with different levels of grand strategizing – creation, mobilization, and implementation. In this essay, we make two interrelated arguments: first is that that ideology is constitutive of the meaning structure that underlies grand strategy. Second is that ideology’s primary function is to invest grand strategy with clarity (if not simplicity), stability and coherence. We identify three distinct ways in which ideology can shape a nation’s grand strategy, including threat identification, mobilization and extraction of resources, and ideological balancing. We use a range of exploratory cases to assess ideology’s status in grand strategizing.

This article critically examines the contemporary ‘securitization paradigm’ adopted throughout the Chilean jurisdiction. Emphasis is placed on its explicit misuse and its arbitrary effects on the Mapuche people in light of Chile’s anti-terrorism legislation. The law thereby assumes a twofold function. ‘Judicialization strategies’ are employed by different organs of the State, resulting in the criminalization and ultimately the silencing of indigenous protest and forms of representation in the public space. These potentially transform relations between the State and its subjects, demanding a repositioning of indigenous agendas and representation under the constitutional umbrella. Conversely, judicialization also assumes a mediating role through the virtuous effects of international law and Inter-American human rights jurisprudence. The newly commencing constitutional era may further spur such developments, potentially exerting essential decolonizing effects on State institutions and society at large.