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.

中文翻译：

---

皮埃尔·布迪厄（Pierre Bourdieu），《国际关系中的殖民经验与方法论反身性》（Colonial Experiences， and Methodological Reflexivity in International Relations）

本文询问了人们可以从皮埃尔·布迪厄 （Pierre Bourdieu） 关于阿尔及利亚和阿尔及利亚的著作以及后来的贡献中学习和反对哪些反身实践。回答这个问题可以修正布迪厄斯的反身性，并为国际关系 （IR） 和国际政治社会学 （IPS） 的方法论反身性辩论做出新的贡献。它进一步确定了三种反身实践：避免理论和概念拜物教，方法论实验和方法论多神论的作化，或者通常被称为多方法研究，以及参与研究和批判性距离之间的交替;人们经常忘记，布迪厄的研究鼓励了对认识不对称的假设和对权力斗争的怀疑，以及情感参与的研究。我举了一个例子，说明如何从当前的 IR 和社会学中执行这些实践，以提高这种干预的教学价值。即使这些做法起源于殖民研究情境，使研究人员免受殖民社会的影响，但这些例子表明，如果不同立场的研究人员介意不同模式的象征性暴力，他们也可以使用这些做法。根据布迪厄早期研究的传统，并考虑到我熟悉的研究，我选择了处理“全球南方”主题或在研究人员自身环境中演变的主题的例子。