Uluslararası İlişkilerde Konstrüktivist Yaklaşımlar

1990’lı yıllarla birlikte Uluslararası İlişkiler alanında yeni bir teorik yaklaşımın ortaya çıktığı görülür. Pozitivist teoriler ile post-pozitivist teoriler arasında konumlandırılan ve bu nedenle ‘üçüncü yol’ olarak nitelendirilen bu yaklaşım, uluslararası ilişkilerin sosyal yanına yaptığı vurgu nedeniyle sosyal konstrüktivizm olarak adlandırılmaktadır. Disiplinin ana-akımından birçok açıdan ayrılan konstrüktivizmin, benimsenen epistemolojik pozisyonlarındaki farklılıklar nedeniyle değişik türleri bulunmaktadır. Bu farklılaşma ilgili yaklaşımın Uluslararası İlişkiler teorileri içindeki yerini ve dolayısıyla ‘üçüncü yol’ olma pozisyonunu tartışmalı hale getirmektedir. Bu yaklaşımın en ayırt edici yanı, uluslararası ilişkiler analizlerine yönelik farklı ontoloji önerisidir. Uluslararası siyasanın temel yapılarının maddi olmaktan çok sosyal olduğunu ileri süren konstrüktivizm, normatif olanın maddi yapılar üzerindeki önceliğini savunur. İlgili yaklaşım, disiplinin ana-akımını oluşturan pozitivist teorilerin göz ardı ettiği kimlik, kültür, söylem ve dil gibi sosyo-kültürel faktörlerin uluslararası ilişkiler analizlerine katılmasını olanaklı kılmaktadır.

Constructivist Approaches in International Relations

Starting with the 1990’s, a new theoretical approach has emerged in the field of International Relations. This approach, which was positioned between the positivist theories and post-positivist theories and thus described as the ‘third way’, is also named as social constructivism due to the emphasis it puts on the social aspect of the international relations. Because of the differences in the epistemological positions adopted, there are different types of constructivism, which is different from the main-stream of the discipline in many ways. The said differences makes the place of the approach in question within the International Relations theories and thus its position as the ‘third way’ controversial. The most distinctive aspect of this approach is its suggestion of different ontology towards the international relations analyses. Suggesting that the basic structures of the international policy are social, rather than material, constructivism argues for the priority of the normative structures over the material ones. The said approach makes the participation of the socio-cultural factors such as identity, culture, discourse and languages, which are ignored by the positivist theories constitutes the main-stream of the discipline, into the international relations analyses possible.

PDF

___

ADLER, Emanuel (1997), “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics,” European Journal of International Relations, 3/3: 319-363.
ARI, Tayyar (2004), Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri: Çatışma, Hegemonya, İşbirliği, 3. Baskı. (İstanbul: ALFA)
BIERSTEKER, Thomas J. / WEBER, Cynthia (1996), “The Social Construction of State Sovereignty,”
BIERSTEKER, Thomas, J. / WEBER, Cynthia (ed.), State Sovereignty as Social Construct (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni. Press): 1-21.
CHECKEL, Jeffrey T. (2003). “Social Constructivism in Global and European Politics,” ARENA Working Papers, WP 15/03.
DEVETAK, Richard (1996), “Critical Theory,” BURCHILL, Scot / LINKLATER, Andrew (eds.), Theories of International Relations (New York: St. Martin’s Press): 145-177.
FRIEDRICHS, Jörg (2004), European Approaches to International Relations Theory: A House with Many Mansions (London: Routledge).
GIDDENS, Anthony (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (Cambridge: Polity Press).
GOULD, Harry D. (1998), “What is at Stake in the Agent-Structure Debate?,” Vendulka KUBALKOVA, Vendulka / ONUF, Nicholas / KOWERT, Paul (eds.), International Relations In A Constructed World (New York: M. E. Sharpe): 79-98.
GUZZUNI, Stefano (2000), “A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations,” European Journal of International Relations, 6/2: 147-182.
KAHLER, Miles (1997), “Inventing International Relations: International Relations Theory After 1945,” DOYLE, W. / IKENBERRY, G. John (eds.), New Thinking in International Relations Theory (Colorado: Westview Press): 20-53.
KEYMAN, Fuat E. (2005), “Kimlik ve Demokrasi,” ERALP, Atila (der.), Devlet ve Ötesi (İstanbul: İletişim): 217-250.
KEOHANE, Robert (1988), “International Institutions: Two Approaches,” International Studies Quarterly, 32/4: 379-396.
KUBALKOVA, Vendulka / ONUF, Nicholas / KOWERT, Paul (1998), “Constructing Constructivism,”
KUBALKOVA, Vendulka / ONUF, Nicholas / KOWERT, Paul (eds.), International Relations In A Constructed World (New York: M. E. Sharpe): 3-21.
LAPID, Yosef (1989), “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post- Positivist Era,” International Studies Quarterly, 33/3: 235-254.
McSWEENEY, Bill (1999), Security, Identity and Interests: A Sociology of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni. Press).
NAVON, Emmanuel (2001), “The ‘Third Debate’ Revisted,” Review of International Studies, 27: 611-625.
NEUFELD, Mark A. (1995), The Restructuring of International Relations Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni. Press).
ONUF, Nicholas (1998), “Constructivism: A User’s Manuel,” KUBALKOVA, Vendulka, / ONUF, Nicholas / KOWERT, Paul (eds.), International Relations In A Constructed World (New York: M. E. Sharpe): 58-78.
REUS-SMİT, Chris (1996), “The Constructivist Turn: Critical Theory After The Cold War,” Canberra: Australian National University, Dept. of International Relations Working Paper, No. 1996/4.
RUGGIE, John Gerard (1988), “What Makes The World Hang Together? Neo-Utilitarianism and The Social Constructivist Challenge,” International Organization, 52/4: 855-885.
SMITH, Steve (1996), “Positivism and Beyond,” SMITH, Steve / BOOTH, Ken / MARYSIA ZALEWSKI, Marysia (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni. Press): 11-44.
SMITH, Steve (1997), “The Self-Images of A Discipline: A Genealogy of International Relations Theory,” BOOTH, Ken / SMITH, Stive (eds.), International Relations Today, 3rd. ed.3. Baskı (Cambridge: Polity Press): 1-37.
SMITH, Steve (1999), “New Approaches to International Theory,” BAYLIS, John / SMITH, Stive (eds.), The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (Oxford: Oxford Uni. Press): 165-190.
TANRISEVER F. Oktay (2005), “Güvenlik,” ERALP, Atila (der.), Devlet ve Ötesi (İstanbul: İletişim): 107-123.
WAEVER, Ole (1996), “The Rise and Fall of The Inter-paradigm Debate,” SMITH, Steve / BOOTH, Ken / ZALEWSKI, Marysia (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni. Press): 149-185.
WAEVER, Ole (1998), “The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations,” International Organization,52/4, Autumn, 1998: 687-727.
WALT, Stephan M. (1998), “Uluslararası İlişkiler: Bir Dünya Binbir Kuram,” Foreign Policy: Bilginin Ufukları (Bahar 1998) (İstanbul: Bilgi Üni. Yayınları) (Çev.: Başak Çalı): 14-29.
WENDT, Alexander E. (1987), “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory,” International Organizations,41/3: 335-370.
WENDT, Alexander (1992), “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organizations, 46/2: 391-425.
WENDT, Alexander (1994), “Collective Identity Formation and The International State,” American Political Review, 88/2: 384-396.
WENDT, Alexander (1995), “Constructing International Politics,” International Security, 20/1: 71-81.
WENDT, Alexander (1996), “Identity and Structural Change in International Politics,” The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory (London: Lynne Rienner Publisher): 47-64.
WENDT, Alexander (1999), Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
WIENER Antje (2003), “Constructivism: The Limits of Bridging Gaps,” Journal of International Relations and Development, 6/3: 252-275.
YALVAÇ, Faruk (2005) “Devlet,” ERALP, Atila (der.), Devlet ve Ötesi (İstanbul: İletişim): 15–51.
YURDUSEV, Nuri (2005), “Uluslararası İlişkilere Teorik Bakmak,” Uluslararası İlişkiler (Cilt 2. Sayı 6): 157–163.