The fragmentation of a discipline: how diversity elevates and undermines Ir’s normative potential

Las relaciones internacionales (RR.II.) se han ido transformando de una disciplina relativamente Estado-céntrica, que principalmente se preocupa por la seguridad internacional y el comportamiento de las grandes potencias, en un campo de juego intelectual mucho más diverso. El presente artículo eval...

Full description

Autores:: Beckmann, Nicolas Alexander

Tipo de recurso:: Article of journal

Fecha de publicación:: 2020

Institución:: Universidad Externado de Colombia

Repositorio:: Biblioteca Digital Universidad Externado de Colombia

Idioma:: spa

id	uexternad2_ecddeaf786f8bf4736e835987f147c47
oai_identifier_str	oai:bdigital.uexternado.edu.co:001/8532
network_acronym_str	uexternad2
network_name_str	Biblioteca Digital Universidad Externado de Colombia
repository_id_str
dc.title.spa.fl_str_mv	The fragmentation of a discipline: how diversity elevates and undermines Ir’s normative potential
dc.title.translated.eng.fl_str_mv	The fragmentation of a discipline: how diversity elevates and undermines Ir’s normative potential
title	The fragmentation of a discipline: how diversity elevates and undermines Ir’s normative potential
spellingShingle	The fragmentation of a discipline: how diversity elevates and undermines Ir’s normative potential Diversity; fragmentation; knowledge; critical thinking; communication diversidad; fragmentación; conocimiento; pensamiento crítico; comunicación
title_short	The fragmentation of a discipline: how diversity elevates and undermines Ir’s normative potential
title_full	The fragmentation of a discipline: how diversity elevates and undermines Ir’s normative potential
title_fullStr	The fragmentation of a discipline: how diversity elevates and undermines Ir’s normative potential
title_full_unstemmed	The fragmentation of a discipline: how diversity elevates and undermines Ir’s normative potential
title_sort	The fragmentation of a discipline: how diversity elevates and undermines Ir’s normative potential
dc.creator.fl_str_mv	Beckmann, Nicolas Alexander
dc.contributor.author.spa.fl_str_mv	Beckmann, Nicolas Alexander
dc.subject.eng.fl_str_mv	Diversity; fragmentation; knowledge; critical thinking; communication
topic	Diversity; fragmentation; knowledge; critical thinking; communication diversidad; fragmentación; conocimiento; pensamiento crítico; comunicación
dc.subject.spa.fl_str_mv	diversidad; fragmentación; conocimiento; pensamiento crítico; comunicación
description	Las relaciones internacionales (RR.II.) se han ido transformando de una disciplina relativamente Estado-céntrica, que principalmente se preocupa por la seguridad internacional y el comportamiento de las grandes potencias, en un campo de juego intelectual mucho más diverso. El presente artículo evalúa las implicaciones de esta transformación en relación con el potencial normativo de las RR.II., el cual es definido en términos de producción de conocimiento y pensamiento crítico. Aunque la creciente diversidad ayuda a abordar los múltiples desafíos y crisis a los que se enfrenta la humanidad, también es evidente que el conocimiento y la jerga especializados, que son necesarios para participar en un subcampo particular, impiden que los académicos de las RR.II. se entiendan entre ellos. Este desarrollo no solo socava la vitalidad de nuestro campo de estudio, sino que también obstruye nuestra capacidad de interactuar con actores políticos y relacionarnos con el público. Además, comunidades académicas que solo miran hacia adentro minimizan el pensamiento crítico. Aunque no existe una panacea para revertir esta tendencia, el artículo afirma que el cultivo de redes de diálogo puede mitigar sus peores efectos al facilitar el aprendizaje mutuo y mejorar nuestras habilidades comunicativas.
publishDate	2020
dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv	2020-06-01 16:17:41 2022-09-08T13:49:27Z
dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv	2020-06-01 16:17:41 2022-09-08T13:49:27Z
dc.date.issued.none.fl_str_mv	2020-06-01
dc.type.spa.fl_str_mv	Artículo de revista
dc.type.coar.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
dc.type.coar.spa.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
dc.type.coarversion.spa.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
dc.type.content.spa.fl_str_mv	Text
dc.type.driver.spa.fl_str_mv	info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.local.eng.fl_str_mv	Journal article
dc.type.redcol.spa.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTREF
dc.type.version.spa.fl_str_mv	info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format	http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
status_str	publishedVersion
dc.identifier.doi.none.fl_str_mv	10.18601/16577558.n32.03
dc.identifier.eissn.none.fl_str_mv	2346-2132
dc.identifier.issn.none.fl_str_mv	1657-7558
dc.identifier.uri.none.fl_str_mv	https://bdigital.uexternado.edu.co/handle/001/8532
dc.identifier.url.none.fl_str_mv	https://doi.org/10.18601/16577558.n32.03
identifier_str_mv	10.18601/16577558.n32.03 2346-2132 1657-7558
url	https://bdigital.uexternado.edu.co/handle/001/8532 https://doi.org/10.18601/16577558.n32.03
dc.language.iso.spa.fl_str_mv	spa
language	spa
dc.relation.bitstream.none.fl_str_mv	https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/oasis/article/download/6583/8940 https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/oasis/article/download/6583/9448 https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/oasis/article/download/6583/9535
dc.relation.citationedition.spa.fl_str_mv	Núm. 32 , Año 2020 : Julio-Diciembre
dc.relation.citationendpage.none.fl_str_mv	28
dc.relation.citationissue.spa.fl_str_mv	32
dc.relation.citationstartpage.none.fl_str_mv	11
dc.relation.ispartofjournal.spa.fl_str_mv	Oasis
dc.relation.references.spa.fl_str_mv	Acharya, A. & Buzan, B. (2019). The making of Global International Relations: Origins and evolution of ir at its centenary. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni¬versity Press. Andreas, P. & Greenhill, K. M. (2010). Sex, drugs, and body counts: The politics of numbers in global crime and conflict. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Ashley, R. K. (1984). The poverty of neorealism. Inter¬national Organization, 38(2), 225-286. Baylis, J.; Smith, S. & Owens, P. (Eds.). (2017). The globalization of world politics: An introduction to International Relations (7th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bull, H. (2000). International Relations as an academic pursuit (1972). In K. Alderson & A. Hurrell (Eds.), Hedley Bull on international society (246- 264). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Bull, H. (2002). The anarchical society: A study of order in world politics (3rd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press. Buzan, B. & Hansen, L. (2009). The evolution of Inter¬national Security Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, C. (2013). The poverty of grand theory. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 483-497. Carr, E. H. (1946). The twenty years’ crisis 1919-1939: An introduction to the study of world politics (2nd ed.). London: MacMillan & Co. Ltd. Cox, R. (1981). Social forces, states and world order: Beyond International Relations theory. Millenium Journal of International Affairs, 10(2), 126-155. Dunne, T.; Hansen, L. & Wight, C. (2013). The end of International Relations theory? European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 405-425. Dunne, T.; Kurki, M. & Smith, S. (Eds.). (2014). Inter¬national Relations theories: Discipline and diversity (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ennis, R. (1991). Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception. Teaching Philosophy, 14(1), 5-24. Guzzini, S. (2013). The ends of International Relations theory: Stages of reflexivity and modes of theori¬zing. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 521-541. Hermann, M. G. (1998). One field, many perspectives: Building the foundations for dialogue. Internatio¬nal Studies Quarterly, 42(4), 605-624. Hollis, M. & Smith, S. (1990). Explaining and understan¬ding International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Paperbacks. Jackson, P. T. (2016). The conduct of inquiry in Interna¬tional Relations (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Jackson, P. T. & Nexon, D. (2013). International theory in a post-paradigmatic era: From substantive wa¬gers to scientific ontologies. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 543-565. Keohane, R. O. (1988). International institutions: Two approaches. International Studies Quarterly, 32(4), 379-396. Keohane, R. O. (1989). International Relations theory: Contributions of a feminist standpoint. Mille¬nium – Journal of International Studies, 18(2), 245-253. Keohane, R. O. (2008). Big questions in the study of world politics. In C. Reus-Smit & D. Snidal (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of International Rela¬tions (708-715). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kornprobst, M. (2009). International Relations as rhe¬torical discipline: Toward (re)-newing horizons. International Studies Review, 11(1), 87-108. Kristensen, P. M. (2018). International Relations at the end: A sociological autopsy. International Studies Quarterly, 62, 245-259. Lake, D. (2011). Why “isms” are evil: Theory, episte¬mology, and academic sects as impediments to understanding and progress. International Studies Quarterly, 55(2), 465-480. Lapid, Y. (1989). The third debate: On the prospects of international theory in a post-positivist era. International Studies Quarterly, 33(3), 235-254. Lapid, Y. & Kratochwil, F. (Eds.). (1995). The return of culture and identity in ir theory. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Ling, L. H. M. (2014). The Dao of World Politics. Toward a post-Westphalian, wordlist International Relations. New York: Routledge. Maliniak, D.; Oakes, A.; Peterson, S. & Tierney, M. J. (2011). International Relations in the us academy. International Studies Quarterly, 55(2), 437-464. Maliniak, D.; Peterson, S.; Powers, R. & Tierney M. J. (2018). Is International Relations a global disci¬pline? Hegemony, insularity, and diversity in the field. Security Studies, 27(3), 448-484. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2011). Imperial by design. The Na¬tional Interest, 111, 16-34. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014). Why the Ukraine crisis is the West’s fault. The liberal delusions that provoked Putin. Foreign Affairs, 93(5), 1-12. Mearsheimer, J. J. & Walt, S. M. (2013). Leaving theory behind: Why simple hypothesis testing is bad for International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 427-457. Morgenthau, H. J. (1948). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Morgenthau, H. J. (1962). The intellectual and political functions of a theory of International Relations. In H. J. Morgenthau, Politics in the 20th century. Vol. 1: The decline of democratic politics (62-78). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Oren, I. (2016). A sociological analysis of the decline of American ir theory. International Studies Review, 18(4), 571-596. Reus-Smit, C. (2013). Beyond metatheory? European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 589-608. Rosenberg, J. (2016). International Relations in the prison of political science. International Relations, 30(2), 127-153. Sylvester, C. (1994). Feminist theory and International Relations in a post-modern era. Cambridge: Cam¬bridge University Press. Sylvester, C. (2013). Experiencing the end and afterlife of International Relations/theory. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 609-626. Tickner, A. B. & Blaney, D. L. (Eds.). (2012). Thinking International Relations differently. London and New York: Routledge. Tickner, A. B. (2013). Core, periphery, and (neo)impe¬rialist International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 627-646. Vasquez, J. A. (1995). The post-positivist debate: Re¬constructing scientific enquiry and international relations theory after enlightenment’s fall. In K. Booth & S. M. Smith, International relations theory today (217-240). Cambridge: Polity Press. Viotti, P. R. & Kauppi, M. V. (1987). International Re¬lations theory: Realism, pluralism, globalism and beyond. New York: Macmillan. Wæver, O. (1998). The sociology of a not so international discipline: American and European developments in International Relations. International Organi¬zation, 52(4), 687-727. Waltz, K. N. (2012). Why Iran should get the bomb. Nuclear balancing would mean stability. Foreign Affairs, 91(4), 2-5.
dc.rights.spa.fl_str_mv	Nicolas Alexander Beckmann - 2020
dc.rights.accessrights.spa.fl_str_mv	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.coar.spa.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.rights.uri.spa.fl_str_mv	https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
rights_invalid_str_mv	Nicolas Alexander Beckmann - 2020 http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
eu_rights_str_mv	openAccess
dc.format.mimetype.spa.fl_str_mv	application/pdf text/html application/xml
dc.publisher.spa.fl_str_mv	Facultad de Finanzas, Gobierno y Relaciones Internacionales
dc.source.spa.fl_str_mv	https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/oasis/article/view/6583
institution	Universidad Externado de Colombia
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv	https://bdigital.uexternado.edu.co/bitstreams/334cd958-8092-432a-b0f4-d2dbf2c8bde0/download
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv	42b78b1b5877ac54a5199f53302a87c3
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv	MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv	Universidad Externado de Colombia
repository.mail.fl_str_mv	metabiblioteca@metabiblioteca.org
_version_	1814100390563545088
spelling	Beckmann, Nicolas Alexander92e7ec90-49f0-46cc-86ce-e3ea69915c932020-06-01 16:17:412022-09-08T13:49:27Z2020-06-01 16:17:412022-09-08T13:49:27Z2020-06-01Las relaciones internacionales (RR.II.) se han ido transformando de una disciplina relativamente Estado-céntrica, que principalmente se preocupa por la seguridad internacional y el comportamiento de las grandes potencias, en un campo de juego intelectual mucho más diverso. El presente artículo evalúa las implicaciones de esta transformación en relación con el potencial normativo de las RR.II., el cual es definido en términos de producción de conocimiento y pensamiento crítico. Aunque la creciente diversidad ayuda a abordar los múltiples desafíos y crisis a los que se enfrenta la humanidad, también es evidente que el conocimiento y la jerga especializados, que son necesarios para participar en un subcampo particular, impiden que los académicos de las RR.II. se entiendan entre ellos. Este desarrollo no solo socava la vitalidad de nuestro campo de estudio, sino que también obstruye nuestra capacidad de interactuar con actores políticos y relacionarnos con el público. Además, comunidades académicas que solo miran hacia adentro minimizan el pensamiento crítico. Aunque no existe una panacea para revertir esta tendencia, el artículo afirma que el cultivo de redes de diálogo puede mitigar sus peores efectos al facilitar el aprendizaje mutuo y mejorar nuestras habilidades comunicativas.International Relations (ir) has transformed from a relatively state-centric discipline that was primarily concerned about international security and the behavior of great powers into a highly diverse intellectual playing field. The present article assesses the implications of this transformation in relation to ir’s normative potential, defined in terms of knowledge production and critical thinking. Although the field’s growing diversity helps addressing the multiple challenges and crises the world is currently facing, it is also evident that the specialized knowledge and jargon that is needed to engage in a specific subfield prevents ir scholars from understanding one another. This development not only undermines the liveliness of the field, but also obstructs our capacity to interact with political actors and engage with the public. Furthermore, inward-looking scholarly communities curtail critical thinking. Although there is no panacea that can reverse this trend, the article claims that cultivating networks of dialogue may assuage its worst effects by facilitating mutual learning and improving our communicative skills.application/pdftext/htmlapplication/xml10.18601/16577558.n32.032346-21321657-7558https://bdigital.uexternado.edu.co/handle/001/8532https://doi.org/10.18601/16577558.n32.03spaFacultad de Finanzas, Gobierno y Relaciones Internacionaleshttps://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/oasis/article/download/6583/8940https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/oasis/article/download/6583/9448https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/oasis/article/download/6583/9535Núm. 32 , Año 2020 : Julio-Diciembre283211OasisAcharya, A. & Buzan, B. (2019). The making of Global International Relations: Origins and evolution of ir at its centenary. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni¬versity Press.Andreas, P. & Greenhill, K. M. (2010). Sex, drugs, and body counts: The politics of numbers in global crime and conflict. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Ashley, R. K. (1984). The poverty of neorealism. Inter¬national Organization, 38(2), 225-286.Baylis, J.; Smith, S. & Owens, P. (Eds.). (2017). The globalization of world politics: An introduction to International Relations (7th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Bull, H. (2000). International Relations as an academic pursuit (1972). In K. Alderson & A. Hurrell (Eds.), Hedley Bull on international society (246- 264). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Bull, H. (2002). The anarchical society: A study of order in world politics (3rd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.Buzan, B. & Hansen, L. (2009). The evolution of Inter¬national Security Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Brown, C. (2013). The poverty of grand theory. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 483-497.Carr, E. H. (1946). The twenty years’ crisis 1919-1939: An introduction to the study of world politics (2nd ed.). London: MacMillan & Co. Ltd.Cox, R. (1981). Social forces, states and world order: Beyond International Relations theory. Millenium Journal of International Affairs, 10(2), 126-155.Dunne, T.; Hansen, L. & Wight, C. (2013). The end of International Relations theory? European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 405-425.Dunne, T.; Kurki, M. & Smith, S. (Eds.). (2014). Inter¬national Relations theories: Discipline and diversity (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Ennis, R. (1991). Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception. Teaching Philosophy, 14(1), 5-24.Guzzini, S. (2013). The ends of International Relations theory: Stages of reflexivity and modes of theori¬zing. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 521-541.Hermann, M. G. (1998). One field, many perspectives: Building the foundations for dialogue. Internatio¬nal Studies Quarterly, 42(4), 605-624.Hollis, M. & Smith, S. (1990). Explaining and understan¬ding International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Paperbacks.Jackson, P. T. (2016). The conduct of inquiry in Interna¬tional Relations (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Jackson, P. T. & Nexon, D. (2013). International theory in a post-paradigmatic era: From substantive wa¬gers to scientific ontologies. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 543-565.Keohane, R. O. (1988). International institutions: Two approaches. International Studies Quarterly, 32(4), 379-396.Keohane, R. O. (1989). International Relations theory: Contributions of a feminist standpoint. Mille¬nium – Journal of International Studies, 18(2), 245-253.Keohane, R. O. (2008). Big questions in the study of world politics. In C. Reus-Smit & D. Snidal (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of International Rela¬tions (708-715). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Kornprobst, M. (2009). International Relations as rhe¬torical discipline: Toward (re)-newing horizons. International Studies Review, 11(1), 87-108.Kristensen, P. M. (2018). International Relations at the end: A sociological autopsy. International Studies Quarterly, 62, 245-259.Lake, D. (2011). Why “isms” are evil: Theory, episte¬mology, and academic sects as impediments to understanding and progress. International Studies Quarterly, 55(2), 465-480.Lapid, Y. (1989). The third debate: On the prospects of international theory in a post-positivist era. International Studies Quarterly, 33(3), 235-254.Lapid, Y. & Kratochwil, F. (Eds.). (1995). The return of culture and identity in ir theory. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Ling, L. H. M. (2014). The Dao of World Politics. Toward a post-Westphalian, wordlist International Relations. New York: Routledge.Maliniak, D.; Oakes, A.; Peterson, S. & Tierney, M. J. (2011). International Relations in the us academy. International Studies Quarterly, 55(2), 437-464.Maliniak, D.; Peterson, S.; Powers, R. & Tierney M. J. (2018). Is International Relations a global disci¬pline? Hegemony, insularity, and diversity in the field. Security Studies, 27(3), 448-484.Mearsheimer, J. J. (2011). Imperial by design. The Na¬tional Interest, 111, 16-34.Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014). Why the Ukraine crisis is the West’s fault. The liberal delusions that provoked Putin. Foreign Affairs, 93(5), 1-12.Mearsheimer, J. J. & Walt, S. M. (2013). Leaving theory behind: Why simple hypothesis testing is bad for International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 427-457.Morgenthau, H. J. (1948). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Morgenthau, H. J. (1962). The intellectual and political functions of a theory of International Relations. In H. J. Morgenthau, Politics in the 20th century. Vol. 1: The decline of democratic politics (62-78). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Oren, I. (2016). A sociological analysis of the decline of American ir theory. International Studies Review, 18(4), 571-596.Reus-Smit, C. (2013). Beyond metatheory? European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 589-608.Rosenberg, J. (2016). International Relations in the prison of political science. International Relations, 30(2), 127-153.Sylvester, C. (1994). Feminist theory and International Relations in a post-modern era. Cambridge: Cam¬bridge University Press.Sylvester, C. (2013). Experiencing the end and afterlife of International Relations/theory. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 609-626.Tickner, A. B. & Blaney, D. L. (Eds.). (2012). Thinking International Relations differently. London and New York: Routledge.Tickner, A. B. (2013). Core, periphery, and (neo)impe¬rialist International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 627-646.Vasquez, J. A. (1995). The post-positivist debate: Re¬constructing scientific enquiry and international relations theory after enlightenment’s fall. In K. Booth & S. M. Smith, International relations theory today (217-240). Cambridge: Polity Press.Viotti, P. R. & Kauppi, M. V. (1987). International Re¬lations theory: Realism, pluralism, globalism and beyond. New York: Macmillan.Wæver, O. (1998). The sociology of a not so international discipline: American and European developments in International Relations. International Organi¬zation, 52(4), 687-727.Waltz, K. N. (2012). Why Iran should get the bomb. Nuclear balancing would mean stability. Foreign Affairs, 91(4), 2-5.Nicolas Alexander Beckmann - 2020info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/oasis/article/view/6583Diversity;fragmentation;knowledge;critical thinking;communicationdiversidad;fragmentación;conocimiento;pensamiento crítico;comunicaciónThe fragmentation of a discipline: how diversity elevates and undermines Ir’s normative potentialThe fragmentation of a discipline: how diversity elevates and undermines Ir’s normative potentialArtículo de revistahttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85Textinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleJournal articlehttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTREFinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionPublicationOREORE.xmltext/xml2613https://bdigital.uexternado.edu.co/bitstreams/334cd958-8092-432a-b0f4-d2dbf2c8bde0/download42b78b1b5877ac54a5199f53302a87c3MD51001/8532oai:bdigital.uexternado.edu.co:001/85322023-08-14 15:08:54.816https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/Nicolas Alexander Beckmann - 2020https://bdigital.uexternado.edu.coUniversidad Externado de Colombiametabiblioteca@metabiblioteca.org

The fragmentation of a discipline: how diversity elevates and undermines Ir’s normative potential

Publicaciones similares