Aristokratik liberalizmde merkezileşme, medya ve özgürlük

Modernlik, ulus devletlerin kurumsallaşması ve tüm yeryüzünü kaplayacak bir biçimde karşılıklı entegrasyonu biçiminde gelişimini sürdürmüştür. Ancak bu süreçte karşılaşılan globalleşme, göç ve meşrulukla ilgili kültürel ve siyasal problemler yeni arayışlara yol açtı. Refah devleti modelinin çöküşü ve soğuk savaşın bitişiyle birlikte, giderek artan bu problemlere cevap arayan akademisyenler, 19. yüzyıl liberal düşünürleriyle ilgilenmeye başlamıştır. Gerçektende 19. yüzyıl liberallerinin modernlik, ulus devlet ve aydınlanmaya yönelik eleştirileri sistemi yeniden yapılandırmak için bir araç olarak kullanılmaya elverişli görünmektedir. Aristokratik liberalizm, 19. yüzyıl düşünce dünyasında öne çıkan en önemli düşünce akımlarından biridir. Aristokratik liberalizm siyaset bilimini, sosyolojiyi ve antropolojiyi derinden etkilemiştir. Aristokratik liberallerin merkezileşme problemine dair düşünceleri günümüzde önemini ve etkisini muhafaza etmektedir. İletişim bilimlerinde özellikle Tocqueville‟in modern gelişmelere paralel olarak medyada gerçekleşen dönüşümlere yönelik eleştirileri etkin bir şekilde kullanılabilir. Onun düşünceleri, hazır bir çözüm sepeti sunmaktan ziyade dâhice uyarıları içermektedir. Dolayısıyla etkin ve yaratıcı çalışmalar için ufuk açıcıdır. Bu çalışmada öncelikle Tocqueville‟lin merkezileşmeye yönelik eleştirilerinin arka planını ele alınmaktadır. Daha sonra ölümünden üç yıl önce basılan L'Ancien Régime et la Révolution (1856) adlı eserinde modernliğin merkezileşme eğilimine paralel olarak gerçekleşen medyanın merkezileşmesine yönelik tespitlerinden hareketle, günümüzdeki gelişmeler değerlendirilmektedir. Ayrıca, modernleşmeyle birlikte negatif özgürlük anlayışına karşı alanını hızla genişleten pozitif özgürlük kavramının merkezileşme sürecindeki rolüne değinilmektedir. Son olarak, bu süreçte adeta kendiliğinden ortaya çıkan medyanın merkezileşmesinin sonuçlarını ele alınmaktadır.

Centralization, media, and liberty in the aristocratic liberalism

The development of modernity goes ahead with institutionalization of nation-states and mutual integration aboveground. The cultural and political dilemma about globalization, immigration and legality triggered new quests. Following the obvious collapse of welfare state model and the end of cold war, academicians seeking for answers to these dilemmas started to be concerned about the liberal philosophers of 19th century. Indeed, the criticism of 19th century liberals towards modernization, nation-state, and enlightenment might be a adequate tool for the reconstruction of the system. Aristocratic liberalism is one of the most outstanding thought movements during 19th century. It profoundly affected political science, sociology and anthropology. The views of aristocratic liberals on centralization maintain its importance in this day and age. In communication sciences, Tocqueville‟s criticisms about transitions of media parallel with latest developments can be benefited effectively. His thoughts involve brilliant notices rather than a pile of prepared solutions. In this sense, they broaden horizons for effective and creative studies. In this study, the background of Tocqueville‟s views on centralization was investigated. Considering the findings about the centralization of media along with the centralization tendency of modernism in his L'Ancien Régime et la Révolution book, recent developments were reviewed. Having superiority over negative liberty with modernization, positive liberty and its role in the process of centralization was touched upon. Lastly, the consequences of media centralization emerging in this process were discussed.

PDF

___

BLANCHARD, W. Scott. (2001), Petrarch and the Genealogy of Asceticism, Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp. 401-423.
BRINT, Michael. E. (1985), Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Benjamin Constant: A Dialogue on Freedom and Tyranny, The Review of Politics, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 323-346.
BURANELLI, Vincent. (1957), The Historical and Political Thought of Boulainvilliers, Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 475-494.
CARRESE, Paul. (2004), Montesquieu's Complex Natural Right and Moderate Liberalism: The Roots of American, Polity, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 227-250.
CHRISTMAN, John. (2005), Saving Positive Freedom, Political Theory, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 79-88.
CONSTANT, Benjamin. (1988), Political Writings, edited and translated by: Biancamaria Fontana, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DE DIJN, Annelien. (2005), Aristocratic Liberalism in Post-Revolutionary France, The Historical Journal, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 661-681.
DE DIJN, Annelien. (2008), French Political Thought from Montesquieu to Tocqueville: Liberty in a Levelled Society, New York: Cambridge University Press.
DE MONTESQUIEU, Baron. (1989). The Spirit of the Laws, translated and edited by Anne M. Cohler, Basia Carolyn Miller and Harold Samuel Stone, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DE TOCQUEVILLE, Alexis. (1856), The Old Regime and the Revolution, trans. John Bonner, New York: Harper & Brothers.
DE TOCQUEVILLE, Alexis. (2010), Democracy in America, ed. Eduardo Nolla, and trans. James T. Schleifer, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, Inc.
ELLIS, Harold. A. (1986), Genealogy, History, and Aristocratic Reaction in Early Eighteenth-Century France: The Case of Henri de Boulainvilliers, The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 58, No. 2, pp. 414-451.
FINK, Beatrice. C. (1972), Benjamin Constant on Equality, Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 307-314.
GIDDENS, Anthony. (1990), The Consequences of Modernity, Cambridge: Polity Press.
GIDDENS, Anthony. (Winter, 1981), Modernism and Post-Modernism. New German Critique: Special Issue on Modernism No. 22, pp. 15-18.
GILLESPIE, Michael Allen. (2008), The Theological Origins of Modernity, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
GRUNER, Shirley. (1968), The Revolution of July 1830 and the Expression 'Bourgeoisie', The Historical Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 462-471.
HABERMAS, Jurgen & Seyla Ben-Habib. (Winter, 1981), Modernity versus Postmodernity. New German Critique: Special Issue on Modernism No. 22, pp. 3-14.
HABERMAS, Jurgen. (1994), Struggles for Recognition in the Democratic Constitutional State, pp. 107148 in Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition, edited by Amy Gutmann. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
HABERMAS, Jurgen. (1999), The European Nation-State and the Pressures of Globalization. New Left Review 235, pp. 4659.
HOBBES, Thomas. (1991), Leviathan, edited by: Richard Tuck, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HOBBES, Thomas. (1998), On The Citizen, edited by: Richard Tuck & Michael Silverthorne, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HUME, David. (1997), İnsan Doğası Üzerine Bir İnceleme, çev. Aziz Yardımlı. İstanbul: İdea Yayınları.
ISHERWOOD, Robert. M. (1969), The Centralization of Music in the Reign of Louis XIV., French Historical Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 156-171.
KAHAN, Alan. (1985), Tocqueville's Two Revolutions, Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 585-596.
KAHAN, Alan. (1989), The Victory of German Liberalism? Rudolf Haym, Liberalism, and Bismarck, Central European History, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 57-88.
KAHAN, Alan. (1992), Aristocratic Liberalism : The Social and Political Thought of Jacob Burckhardt, John Stuart Mill, and Alexis de Tocqueviile, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
KAHAN, Alan. (2003), Liberalism in Nineteenth-Century Europe: The Political Culture of Limited Suffrage, Hampshire and New York: Palgrave.
KAHAN, Alan. (2012), Arnold, Nietzsche and the Aristocratic Vision, History of Political Thought, Vol. 32, Issue 1, pp. 125-144.
LAKOFF, Sanford. (1998), Tocqueville, Burke, and the Origins of Liberal Conservatism, The Review of Politics, Vol. 60, No. 3 (Summer, 1998), pp. 435-464.
LIGGIO, Leonard P. (1977), Charles Dunoyer and French Classical Liberalism, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 153-178.
MILLER, Stephen. (Summer, 2003), Absolutism and Class at the End of the Old Regime: The Case of Languedoc, Journal of Social History, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 871-898.
NÄSSTRÖM, Sofia. (2007), The Legitimacy of the People, Political Theory, Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 624-658.
RAHE, Paul. (2009), Soft Despotism, Democracy's Drift: Montesquieu, Rousseau, Tocqueville, and the Modern Prospect, New Haven & London: Yale University Press.
RAHE, Paul. (2010), Montesquieu and the Logic of Liberty: War, Religion, Commerce, Climate, Terrain, Technology, Uneasiness of Mind, the Spirit of Political Vigilance, and the Foundations of the Modern Republic, New Haven & London: Yale University Press.
SENNETT, Richard (1992). The Fall of Public Man, New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
SHARON, Krause. (2000), The Spirit of Separate Powers in Montesquieu, The Review of Politics, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 231-265.
SWART, Koenraad. W. (1962), Individualism in the Mid-Nineteenth Century (1826-1860), Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 77-90.
TOMASELLO, Michael. (2008), Origins of Human Communication, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
VILLA, Dana. (2005), Hegel, Tocqueville, and Individualism, The Review of Politics, Vol. 67, No. 4, pp. 659-686.
WALLERSTEIN, Immanuel. (1995). The End of What Modernity, Theory and Society, Vol. 24, No. 4: 471-488.
WEIL, Frederick. D. (1986), The Stranger, Prudence, and Trust in Hobbes's Theory, Theory and Society, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 759-788.
WINTHROP, Delba. (1981), Tocqueville's Old Regime‟: Political History, The Review of Politics, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 88-111.
YOUNG, James T. (1898), Administrative Centralization and Decentralization in France, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 11, pp. 24-43.