The trajectory of political science in Brazil and its autonomization: an analysis from the postgraduate programs 1

: The article traces the trajectory of institutionalization and autonomization of Political Science within the Brazilian academic field and, to this end, takes the post-graduation as object of study and as a fundamental space to understand the processes of building of this area throughout the twentieth century. Its more general objective is to understand the conditions of possibility of the construction of an academic space specific to Political Science in Brazil, a task developed from a quanti-qualitative approach marked by the revision and dialogue with the literature and by the work with data about the post graduate programs. The text ends by pointing out the correlation between the classical aspects discussed when it comes to objectifying Political Science (such as: relative "backwardness", relation with Sociology or even the financing of international agencies) and the master's and doctoral courses that form this area. It contributes to the debate about the role of postgraduate in the construction of the relative autonomy of Political Science in the Brazilian academic universe.


Introduction
"… the field is an open experience able to include even those who challenge it" (Lessa, 2011, p. 25).
The debate around the academic and institutional development of Social Sciences in Brazil directs us to an already well-established literature that shows its genesis in the 1930s, when the first degrees of Social Sciences are created. However, it is important to consider that the contemporary limits we have of such sciences, Anthropology, Political Sciences, and Sociology, are relatively new, distant from a broader initial understanding. We can see this when analyzing the sequential degrees offered by the Escola Livre de Sociologia e Política, when it started the division of postgraduate studies in the 1940s was the following: Anthropology, Sociology, Political Science, Economics, Psychology, and Statistics (Kantor, Maciel, & Simões, 2009).
It is also interesting to highlight that social sciences assumed different arrangements in each local context, the academic disciplines were closer or more distant depending on the objectives of each course. As stated by Oliveira (2018): … where there was a more explicit concern with research development and the formation of technical staff, Economics and Psychology were closer to Sociology, Anthropology, and Political Thought; in the context where there was a stronger concern on teacher training, History and Geography had more space in the composition" (pp. 433-434) In this direction, it is important to understand that, despite the relevance of going back to the history of Social Sciences degrees to make a historical analysis of political science in Brazil, it would be anachronic to simplify the issue, as social science was, at first, only secondarily present in the formation offered by those courses. Therefore, this discussion places us in a more complex debate about the understanding of institutionalization criteria involving the construction of a specific social space, within the academic field, with its own evaluation rules, recognition, and legitimization of the object of politics (Bourdieu, 2008). Hence, in this article, we aim to analyze the process of autonomization of a certain academic field in Brazil, in this case, political science. We understand that the degree of autonomy of a field can be seen by its ability to refract outside influences (Bourdieu, 2004).
As we will see later, political science becomes autonomous in Brazil through an increasing degree of specialization, which allowed a significant distancing from other social sciences, especially sociology. We understand, and assume as a guiding hypothesis, that the postgraduate programs were the main agents in this process, responsible to consolidate a unique modus operandi of this science in its process to produce knowledge.
Thus, this is the theoretical and epistemic scope in which the current work is situated, rooted in a more general exercise to understand the conditions that allowed the autonomization of political science in Brazil. We aim to contribute to the debate about the trajectory of social science in the country, placing its development through different interpretative lenses and narrowing the debate to consolidate it in the postgraduation.
Therefore, we understand that, from the trajectory of the institutionalization of political science and the empirical data raised, it is possible to see the efforts of autonomization from other areas. That means that there is a recognition of the search for autonomization of political science derived, as shown by Leite and Codato (2008), from institutional aspects (such as the creation of specific postgraduate degrees in the area, specialized journals, and the consolidation of representative bodies of the group) to theoretical-methodological aspects (development and consolidation of particular theories, methods, and approaches). In this case, the text situates the process of creating postgraduate programs in the area 5 through a historical view that dialogues with the initiatives previous to such programs, which serve as their pillars, besides briefly pointing the current unfoldings of this process in the scope of the research lines of these programs. From a methodological perspective, it is important to point out our comprehensive view regarding our research object, that, followed by a quant-qualitative approach, demanded the following strategies: review and dialogue with the specialized literature to reconstruct the institutionalization trajectory of Brazilian political science; collect secondary data about the postgraduate program (programas de pós-graduação -PPGs) in the area (through Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior -Capes) 6 to create a database on the field; treatment, categorization, and analysis of the whole data.

Brief history of Political Science in Brazil
Though inseparable from the history of social sciences, the history of political science in Brazil has particularities that allow us to say that it was only in the 1960s that we could talk about the constitution of political science as an academic subject. This relative "delay" on the institutionalization of the area is not a strictly Brazilian phenomenon (Forjaz, 1997), but has distinctive elements of other experiences to establish academic subjects, especially its development mainly through postgraduate programs 7 . Besides this, distancing itself from the hegemony of São Paulo sociology school, the establishment of political science is seen in the experience of a generational group from the states of Minas Gerais and Rio de Janeiro, with a strong influence of North-American school and guided by investments from international foundations (Fojaz, 1997;Keinert & Silva, 2010;Marenco, 2016).
However, the definition of a subject genesis implies a discussion of its landmarks and even the discussion on the meaning of institutionalization used. Before moving to the trajectory of political science in the country, it is important to highlight the limits and potentials implied in reviewing and dialoguing with the specialized literature. The works that reflected on the development of this area are, as expected, self-reflections of agents from the analyzed field -naturally, this characteristic is not endemic to political science. The main consequences of such reflections, having authors-researchers who dedicate themselves to the subject in question, that is, people who hold positions within it, revolve, on one hand, around the broader understanding of the autonomization processes of the area due to their privileged perspectives, and, on the other, the interest to present and defend a narrative that benefits their groups, institutions, and theoretical-methodological perspectives ( or place them in a leading position).
Though the definition of generational landmark would be consistent in political science as a scientific subject from the 1960s onward, especially due to the influence of the work organized by Bolívar Lamounieur (1982), the author himself points to another important element to establish political science in Brazil: the existence of tradition of political thought previous to the boom of economic growth, urbanization, and increase of universities. This tradition, according to the author, would be decisive to understand how social sciences and, more specifically, political science would become more autonomous throughout the 20 th century.
Defending this argument, Lamounier (1982) uses as a base the stages drawn by Wanderley Guilherme dos Santos (1967), which pointed out a series of problems to be solved and faced by intellectuals. The themes pursued by these first interpreters of Brazil, especially until the 1930s, represented by Alberto Torres, Oliveira Vianna, and Azevedo Amaral, were marked by the issue of the formation of the State and the Nation, discussed in grand historical narratives and "authoritarian" though. Summing up, these renowned interpreter provided new perspectives about Brazil assuming a "mismatch of the political analysis in relation to the legal formalism, projecting agendas, concepts, and diagnoses strange to the conventional knowledge of constitutional lawyers" (Marenco, 2016, p. 166).
This look towards a "broader history" of political science in Brazil (Lessa, 2011) does not ignore a set of practices and studies done much before the establishment of the subject in the university space. Simultaneously, these same authors are agents involved in the process of institutionalization of political science, claiming the idea of tradition, thus they build an effort to draw a growing trajectory of political science. Keinert and Silva (2010), on their turn, indicate that this narrative also has the role of, on one hand, promoting a particular modality of political intervention based in new scientific parameters and, on the other, value the contribution of the attempts from the beginning of the century, relativizing then the idea of the university structure as the core of intellectual legitimacy.
We must remember that social sciences, materialized by sociology, formally enter Brazilian curricula through secondary education, already in the 1920s 9 , passing by the Reformations of Rocha Vaz (1925) andFrancisco Campos (1931). It was also a compulsory subject to those interested to pursue higher education. In these complementary course, a series of themes related to the sociological knowledge was included, as well as others connected to politics, such as the origin of the State, contractual theories, forms of State and govern, vote, rights and duties of the State, and individual guarantees 10 . It is interesting to note that, despite a majority of self-taught teachers in the classes of sociology in this period, one of its first teachers, in 1925 at Colégio Pedro II, Delgado de Carvalho (1884, From that, between 1930 and 1964, the institutional and intellectual development of social sciences took place through a straight connection between the "advancement of public universities and the availability of governmental resources to create independent centers of reflection and investigation" (Miceli, 1989a, p. 12). The first courses of Social With the creation of these first courses, Miceli (1989a) points out the crucial differences in the development of social science in São Paulo which allowed its quick and stronger consolidation. According to the author, there was a set of elements which contributed to the creation of an intellectual sector of São Paulo around the university organization (especially at Faculdade de Filosofia da USP) which could break with the juridical mentality. The strong French influence was also a key element, emphasizing the sociological treatment, letting space for political science to grow. Contrariwise, states such as Rio de Janeiro and Minas Gerais could not reach a higher autonomy to develop the degrees of Social Science, prevailing the social sciences with an ideological-political perspective in the first, and a connection to juridical and economic subjects in the later.
Beyond the criticism of the "founding myth" of São Paulo (Trindade, 2007), the fact is that the development of a sociological school in São Paulo introduced other parameters of social "science", especially, from the 1950s on, when Florestan Fernandes assumes the subject Sociology I, starting a new phase with the creation of sociological works. Despite the São Paulo hegemony and the sociological emphasis, Trindade (2007)  as "sociology (of) politics" would be played against a broader autonomy of "political science", a conflict that has produced continuous debates-as seen in Sartori (1972), Forjaz (1997, Reis (2002), Perissinotto (2004) 14 .
Only in the 1960s and 1970s social sciences reached its intellectual "adulthood" (Forjaz, 1997), with the expansion and professionalization of the community of social scientists. According to the author, political science could reach more space, mainly with the implementation of a postgraduate system in the 1960s and, on the other hand, the establishment of funding agencies integrated to the national system of scientific and technological development, aiming policies of planning and economic development, such as This same movement coexisted with the military regime, striking and repressing "sectors of the scientific and academic community more actively oppositional", at the same time that "it allowed the enlargement of a network of institutions connected to Science and Technology in which several social scientists could participate" (Forjaz, 1997, p. 4). It is in this sense that Marenco (2016) indicates that this paradox also opened up a space for the community of intellectuals that had been creating a type of common agenda ( especially based on Iseb), with interpretations disconnected with the predominant sociological frames, introducing variables of analysis of institutional change, with categories and political analysis.
Besides this, the constitution of a political science in Brazil was straightly connected to the North-American thought, influenced by members of this new generation from Minas and Rio and distancing from the French and German schools that were predominant in São Paulo. The investments done since the 1960s by international agencies, especially Ford Foundation, was one of the main pillars to the creation of a political science agenda in Brazil, that invested scholarships and grants in excellence centers in political science in the United States and brough some North-American scholars. According to Keinert and Silva (2010), political science would assume a strategic position due to its potential to elaborate public policies, allowing a subject profile guided towards a national-political agenda with institutional bases if the liberal-democratic regime, emphasizing the assimilation of quantitative techniques and methods. Summing up, " to form elites and influence policymaking in Brazil was part of the political strategy of Ford and other American organizations connected with a broader project of hegemony in Latin America" (Forjaz, 1997, p. 5) 15 .
In this sense, the Department of Political Science of Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) benefited from these investments, offering the first master's program in Political Science in Brazil in 1969. In the same year, the Instituto Universitário de Pesquisas do Rio de Janeiro (Ipuperj) started to receive resources from the Foundation, followed by a higher amount of investments on the Centro Brasileiro de Análise e Planejamento (Cebrap), in São Paulo (Forjaz, 1997) 16 . Thus, the two first institutes were the main core of Political Science institutionalization in Brazil, with names as Wanderley Guilherme dos Santos, Fábio Wanderley Reis, Bolivar Lamounieur, Antônio Cintra, Simon Shwartzman, Amaury Souza and others listed by Forjaz (1997), whose first works imprinted another perspective on the political studies in the country.
According to Forjaz (1997), it was therefore the context of postgraduate programsincluding those with no ties with the university, as is the case of Iuperj -, that allowed a higher organizational flexibility to assemble grand-scale projects and more diversified professional and academic formation, leading also to the gathering of researchers into lines of interests, such as electoral studies, social policies, unionism, and others. Besides this, it is in the context of relation with the authoritative State that the political dimension of social thought becomes obvious, together with the emergence of social movements and persecution in the universities, demanding studies about this and politicizing social sciences.
15 This context has even influenced the studies of international politics, allowing a greater interlocution with the International Relations (IR) -which is better developed in the United States, which become part of the curricula of Political Science departments and postgraduation research lines on the area. We also note that Political Science and IT are part of the same evaluation area at Capes. A deeper analysis of this process can be seen in Miyamoto (1999). 16 In 1973 the master's degree in Sociology and Political Science was created at Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), followed in 1974, by the programs at Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp) and USP (Trindade, 2007, p. 102).  Luiz Antônio Cunha (1974) identified, still in the 1970s, the great transformations through which Brazilian higher education was going through and highlighted its "internal vertical differentiation" as a central element to understand that scenario. This meant paying attention on the diversity of degrees granted by higher education institutions (HEI), as well as distinct academic values that such degrees started to have in society. The institutionalization of post-graduation represented in this context a type of consequence (i) to the tendence of increase in the undergraduate enrollments between 1960 and 1965; (ii) to the figure of the "surplus" student that becomes more prominent since the 1966-a candidate that was approved in the admission tests, but could not enroll in a certain HEI due to the lack of places (Cunha, 1974;Durham, 2005) (Sucupira, 1980); (iv) and also to the "authoritarian modernization" typical of the military dictatorship (Motta, 2014), that has as a sui generis expression of its contradictions in the process of constructing, publicly debating, and implementing the University Reform of 1968 (Fernandes, 1979).

Postgraduate education in Political Science in Brazil
The immediate results of the institutionalization of postgraduation in the country are tied to a new emphasis on research and formal titles, followed by a fast proliferation of postgraduate programs in Brazilian universities 20 (Verhine, 2008). Since the beginning postgraduation became itself an object of study and analysis of its professors/researchers, in a movement of self-reflection that has crossed the last five decades. To Darcy Ribeiro (1980), the postgraduation experience would be the most positive thing in the history of Brazilian higher education. This euphoric declaration has been followed by assertions and analysis that highlight the role of this educational level in Brazilian scientific field 21 as a whole and for the specific academic spaces of each subject or knowledge area (Silva, 2017).
In this sense, the history of postgraduation is one of the most relevant marks to think the construction and consolidation of a scientific community in Brazil (Moritz, Moritz, Pereira, & Maccari, 2013). In the case of political science, the "younger sister of social sciences" (Forjaz, 1997, p. 2), its identity is affirmed from the mid-1960s on, what allows us to connect its particular movements of autonomization as an academic field from the institutionalization of postgraduation in the country.
If, as we have seen so far, the ways taken by political science in its process of academic autonomization are revealing of broader movements of maturing of Brazilian scientific field, in general, and in social sciences, more specifically -as well as indicating 20 Such context led to the creation of its own regulation and the National Postgraduation Plans (Planos Nacionais de Pós-Graduação -PNPG), besides the investment of the federal government granting master's and doctoral scholarships through Capes and CNPq, since the 1960s, what exemplifies the dimension that postgraduation has taken along the way, eve in the governance of science and technology (Morosini, 2009). 21 The critical and revealing analysis of the contradictions and challenges faced by this education level are also highlighted on the production about the theme, for example Santos (2003) and Steiner (2005).  The most recent expansion of the programs may indicate on the middle and long term a change in the academic geopolitics, though the most consolidated institutions might keep a relevant role on forming personnel and the routinization of knowledge in the political science field. We can infer that this movement of personnel formation in the more "peripheric" programs also tend to suffer gradual changes with the expansion process of postgraduation and the geographic dispersion of the programs, as can be seen through the programs of academic excellence outside this axis, as are the cases of Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE) and UFRGS. At the same time, we can infer that this reality leads to the consolidation of certain theoretical paradigms and thematic agendas.
Under this perspective that connects the history of building these PPGs to its current unfolding and expression, we also highlight an element that was able to give a portray of the area by revealing the maturity of political science in Brazil: we are referring to the research lines that establish the specific academic space. We mapped, based on the sites

From a methodological point of view, the work with research lines in Political
Science PPGs implied collecting the data, organizing, reading their descriptions, and categorize them -it is worth noting that the categories were not created a priori, they were drawn as the data was build, for which it was crucial a dialogue with the literature. This instance (i) the term "compared politics" that was categorized together with international relations and international politics, but that shows an increase in the number of agents inclined to make compared studies on different political contexts; and (ii) the category "others", which encompasses lines as "political culture", "political elites", "companies, society, and politics", and "power, subjectivity, and political change".
When comparing this scenario with the analysis done by Lima and Cortes (2013) about the research lines in the programs of Sociology/Social Science, it is even more evident the process of autonomization of political science in postgraduation, as these programs seem to have assumed the ability to develop their own research agenda, encompassing themes that are not priorities in the agenda of the Sociology/Social Sciences programs.
However, in this same study, the authors also point out that the most recurrent research lines in these programs were related to the theme "State, Politics, Institutions, Democracy", what reaffirms the role that the programs of social science and political science still have in establishing the research agenda of political science and, more specifically, connected to the historic disputes among the different areas of social sciences in Brazil. It also reaffirms the processes to search for authority over the legitimate discourse around the different themes that integrate such agenda. This debate resumes the issue of overlapping amongst sociology, anthropology, and political science besides the effort to outline the epistemological specificities of these areas, which has marked the last decades with strength within each area. Peirano (1997), when analyzing the works and discussions that have marked the debate on More recently, Lessa (2011) faces once again this debate and helps us understand the specificity of political science when compared to sociology and anthropology: … political knowledge seems to fall into a nominalist trap. Because it carries on the name its object, Politics-as a discipline and as an investigation habit -it is confused with politics, as an ontological domain. The belief in the existence of neutral objects and eminently political impose the practitioners in the field a sort of mimetic culture, inattentive to what does not seem as such. Anthropologists and sociologists are more characterized by using a perspective of analyzing things than by capturing fragments of social ontology, which would belong to them according to customary disciplinary rights. In this sense, more agile and diversified disciplinary cultures could be developed, with no respect to rigidly established frontiers of objects allowed and forbidden (p. 24) Using the philosopher Willard Quine, Lessa (2011) ratifies the need to think the area not only through the circumscription of particular objects, but also the ways to refer about such objects. In this sense, assuming that " …there are no objects to investigate, outside the disciplinary fields that define them as such" (Lessa, 2011, pp. 5-6, author's highlight), the fights for autonomization that have historically placed political science in dispute with other area, mainly sociology, are part of processes to build its doxa (consensual opinion) and its nomoi (general rules) (Bourdieu & Eagleton, 1996), i.e., that which is specific to it.
Generally, the historical process of establishing the space of political science in the context of Brazilian academic field gains contemporary outlines when analyzing the current research lines in the PPGs of the area. The relation with the domain of international relations and foreign founding agencies resulted in a rich exchange of Brazilian and foreign researchers when building the autonomy of political science in the country, thus it is key to 25 The author explains such difference: "To the anthropologists perhaps this disciplinary issue in the end of the century may be less distressing. Having as a craft and as a responsibility, since the hopeful times of the early century, the search for the reason of the 'primitive' and the ' overseas' the anthropologists have learn (and have incorporated) relativization as a key principle, from which more sophisticated approaches were built" (Peirano, 1996, p. 18). can be an expression of the specialization of political science in Brazil, as well as of the broadening and complexification of its research agenda (Lessa, 2011).
Finally, we should highlight that the relation between the trajectory of Political Science and its current configuration, surely we are not referring to a direct and simple causality relation, but a complex web of comings and goings, fights for space and legitimacy within the social sciences and the broader academic field that results in the rules, logic, and the conflicts that feed Political Science today in Brazil.

Final remarks
The processes of building and affirming scientific and academic autonomy of an area of knowledge involve non-linear trajectories inscribed in the history of development of an academic field in a certain context. In this article, we have tried to analyze the scientific action and its organization in areas of knowledge through the autonomization of specific academic spaces. Political science was our object of study and the institutionalization trajectory and its postgraduation programs were used as a base to deepen the debate around the specificities of this space.
Contrary to what happened in other Latin American countries, in which political science became autonomous and established itself mainly through undergraduate degree, we observed in Brazil a movement through which this science became part of a broader framework of social sciences in the undergraduate level since the 1930s, becoming autonomous only in the 1960s, with the first postgraduate programs. Even with the emergence of specific undergraduate degrees in political science, the disciplinary formation in this science is still focused in the postgraduation. Even though we can see the porosity of disciplinary boundaries, the fact is that in Brazil there was an intense formation of personnel in the postgraduate program in Social Science, Political Sociology and other similar areas (as International Relations). We have tried to show along this article, recursively using the historic reconstitution of this field, the role that postgraduation has in the process of autonomization of political science in Brazil. Thus, we understand that the postgraduation programs are key agents in this process, responsible to systematize, create routines, and legitimize the rules of the field.
We also observe that, despite the growth in the area especially of programs in "peripheric" universities withing a certain geopolitics of knowledge, we can affirm that political science has had a later process to consolidate its institutionalization when compared with the other social sciences (anthropology and sociology). At the same time, as we have tried to show this cannot lead us to a flimsy interpretation that hides the trajectory developed by this area in the last decades. The substantial number of specialized publications, the increasing production, and the international insertion of the Brazilian researchers who compose the faculty of these programs are evidences of the power of the area within the broader field of social sciences. Brazilian political Science when seen from the postgraduation perspective is, therefore, a solid area with its own research agenda, marked by an intense circulation of researchers, what can be an object of analysis for future works.
We have started this article with the words of Renato Lessa (2011) about political science as an open field, we want to resume his analysis in the end of this work: We have in Brazil a long tradition of political thought and reflection, with different styles and emphasis and divergent centers from which multiple outlines of the field can be traced. A field is also established by its gaps. It can even be presented as a gap space, here and there, filled by spots more or less blurry, concentration of colors, and more systematization. (p. 25) The idea of open field in the scope of Brazilian political science, considered in this text in the dual form of its historic and cultural expressions, seem to be rich as it can encompass a trajectory that continuously dialogues with what is external to it, from the social sciences to the foreign influences; with its fights for autonomization, which reveal competing narratives on its own history; and even with a heterogeneity of epistemological, theoretical, and methodological contributions, that have supported a gradual diversification of themes, research lines, and research objects.