ULUSLARARASI’NIN BECKÇİ ELEŞTİRİSİ

Refleksif modernleşme, ikinci modernite, kozmopolitanlaşma ve dünya risk toplumu kuramlarınınöncülerinden ve Uluslararası İlişkiler alanında özellikle risk toplumu üzerine çalışmalarıyla bilinen sosyologUlrich Beck, Uluslararası İlişkiler yazımının tarihsel olarak ulusal durum tasavvuru üzerine inşa edildiğini,metodolojik ulusçuluğun alana içkin bir pratik olduğunu ve bunun ötesine geçmek için kozmopolitan birmetodoloji takip edilmesi gerektiğini savunmaktadır. Buradan hareketle bu çalışma metodolojik ulusçuluğunUluslararası İlişkiler alanındaki içkin konumuna yönelik bir sorgu oluşturmakta, Ulrich Beck’in kozmopolitansosyolojisinin ve metodolojik kozmopolitanizminin ilgili yanlışın ötesine geçmek için sunduğu araçları veimkânları tartışmakta ve bu minvalde Beckçi kozmopolitanizmin alanda mevcut analiz birimleri ve kategorileriiçin öngördüğü değişim ve dönüşümleri tartışmaktadır. Çalışma, önerilen kozmopolitan dönüşümün anlamınıgenelde Uluslararası İlişkiler, özelde de Ulusötesi İlişkiler ve Dış Politika çalışmaları alanları için ayrı ayrısorgularken, kozmopolitan yaklaşımın metodolojik ulusçuluğu ve onun getirdiği indirgemeci sorunları aşarakilgili alanlara, temel araştırma kategorileri olan ulusalı, uluslararasını, ve küreseli ulusötesi nitelikli yapılar veilişkiler olarak yeniden tanımlama ve bu minvalde inceleme imkanı sunduğunu savunmaktadır.

A Beckian Critique of the ‘International

The sociologist Ulrich Beck – a pioneering figure in reflexive modernism, second modernity, cosmopolitanization and world risk society, and the scholar known within the International Relations (IR) by his works on risk society – argued that IR has retrospectively been built on the premises of the national condition, thus methodological nationalism is an intrinsic practice within the field, and to go beyond it a cosmopolitan methodology shall be embraced. Based on this, this paper explores the intrinsic position of methodological nationalism within IR, discusses about the means and opportunities Ulrich Beck’s cosmopolitan sociology and methodology present in going beyond such misconduct and in this manner reflects on the changes and transformations the Beckian cosmopolitanism prescribes for the units and categories of analysis within the field. This paper, while examining the meaning of such transformation for IR in general and for transnational relations and foreign policy studies in specific, argues that the cosmopolitan approach, through going beyond methodological nationalism and beyond the problems of reductionism accompanying it, offers opportunities for the relevant fields of redefining the national, international, transnational and global as transnational structures and relations and of accordingly analysing them.

PDF

___

Barnett, Michael ve Kathryn Sikkink (2008), “From International Relations to Global Society,” Reus- Smit, Christian ve Duncan Snidal (Der), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 62-83.
Beck, Ulrich (2000), “The cosmopolitan perspective: sociology of the second age of modernity”, British Journal of Sociology 51(1): 79-105.
Beck, Ulrich (2002), “The Cosmopolitan Society and its Enemies,” Theory, Culture & Society 19 (1- 2): 17-44.
Beck, Ulrich (2003a), “Toward a New Critical Theory with a Cosmopolitan Intent.” Constellations 10(4): 453-468.
Beck, Ulrich (2003b) “Rooted Cosmopolitanism: Emerging from a Rivalry of Distinctions”, Beck, Ulrich, Natan Sznaider ve Rainer Winter (Der), Global America? The Cultural Consequences of Globalization, (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press): 15-29.
Beck, Ulrich (2005a) Power in the Global Age: A new global political economy (Cambridge: Polity Press).
Beck, Ulrich (2005b) “War is Peace: On Post-National War,” Security Dialogue 36(1): 5-26.
Beck, Ulrich (2006) Cosmopolitan Vision (Cambridge: Polity Press).
Beck, Ulrich (2007a), “The Cosmopolitan Condition: Why Methodological Nationalism Fails”, Theory, Culture & Society 24(7-8): 286-290.
Beck, Ulrich (2007b), “Beyond class and nation: reframing social inequalities in a globalizing World”, The British Journal of Sociology 58(4):679-705.
Beck, Ulrich (2008) “Mobility and the Cosmopolitan Perspective”, Canzler, Weert, Vincent Kaufmann ve Sven Kesselring (Der), Tracing mobilities: Towards a cosmopolitan perspective (Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing): 25-35.
Beck, Ulrich (2009), “Critical Theory of World Risk Society: A Cosmopolitan Vision”, Constellations 16(1): 3-22.
Beck, Ulrich (2009), World at Risk (Cambridge: Polity).
Beck, Ulrich and Christoph Lau (2005) “Second modernity as a research agenda: theoretical and empirical explorationsin the ‘meta-change’ of modern society,” The British Journal of Sociology 56(4): 525-557.
Beck, Ulrich ve Edgar Grande (2010), “Varieties of second modernity: the cosmopolitan turn in social and political theory and research”, The British Journal of Sociology 61(3): 409-443.
Beck, Ulrich ve Natan Sznaider (2006), “Unpacking cosmopolitanism for the social sciences: a research agenda”, The British Journal of Sociology 57(1): 1-23.
Beck, Ulrich, Wolfgang Bonss ve Christoph Lau (2003), “The Theory of Reflexive Modernization Problematic, Hypotheses and Research Programme,” Theory, Culture & Society 20(2): 1– 33.
Beitz, Charles (1979), Political theory and international relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Bull, Hedley (1977), The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (Londra: Macmillan).
Cochran, Molly (2000), Normative Theory in International Relations: A Pragmatic Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Daniel, Chernilo (2011), “The Critique of Methodological Nationalism: Theory and History”, Thesis Eleven 106(1): 98-117.
Delanty, Gerard (2006) “The cosmopolitan imagination: critical cosmopolitanism and social theory,” The British Journal of Sociology 57(1): 25-47.
Dessler, David (1989), “What is at stake in the Agent-Structure Debate”, International Organization 43(3): 441-473.
Friedman, Gil ve Harvey Starr (1997), Agency, Structure, and International Politics – From Ontology to Empirical Inquiry (London: Routledge).
Friedrichs, Jörg ve Friedrich Kratochwil (2009), “On Acting and Knowing: How Prgmatism Can Advance International Relations Research and Methodology”, International Organization 63(4):701-731.
Gilpin, Robert (1971) “The politics of transnational economic relations,” International Organization 25( 3): 398-419.
Gilpin, Robert (1976), “The political economy of the multinational corporation: three contrasting perspectives,” American Political Science Review 70(1): 184-191.
Grande, Edgar (2006) “Cosmopolitan political science,” The British Journal of Sociology 57(1): 87- 111.
Gunther Hellmann (2014), “Methodological Transnationalism–Europe’s Offering to Global IR?”, European Review of International Studies 1(1): 25-37.
Haas, Peter (1992) “Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination”, International Organization 46(1): 1-35.
Hellmann, Gunther (2009b), “Pragmatism and Internaitonal Relations”, International Studies Review 11(3):638-662.
Hellmann, Gunther ve Knud Erik Jorgensen (2015) Theorizing Foreign Policy in a Globalized World (London: Palgrave Macmillan).
Keck, Margaret ve Kathryn Sikkink (1998), Activists beyond Borders Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).
Kratochwil, Friedrich (1989), Rules, Norms and Decisions – On the conditions of practical and legal reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Kurki, Milja (2007) “Critical Realism and Causal Analysis in International Relations: Causes All the Way Down,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 35(2): 361-378.
Linklater, Andrew (1981), “Men and citizens in international relations,” Review of International Studies 7(1): 23-37.
Linklater, Andrew (1990), Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations, (London: Macmillan).
Nina Glick Schiller (2008), “Beyond Methodological Ethnicity: Local and Transnational Pathways of Immigrant Incorporation”, Willy Brandt Series of Working Papers in International Migration and Ethnic Relations 2/08: 1-36.
Nye, Joseph ve Robert Keohane (1971a), “Transnational Relations and World Politics: An Introduction”, International Organization 25(3): 329-349.
Nye, Joseph ve Robert Keohane (1971b), “Transnational Relations and World Politics: A Conclusion”, International Organization 25(3): 721-748.
Onuf, Nicholas (1989) World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations, (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press).
Risse, Thomas (2013), “Transnational Actors and World Politics”, Carlsnaes, Walter, Thomas Risse ve Beth Simmons (Der), Handbook of International Relations (Sage, London, 2nd Ed.): 426- 452.
Risse-Kappen, Thomas (1995a), “Bringing transnational relations back in: introduction”, Risse- Kappen, Thomas (Der), Bringing transnational relations back in: Non-state actors, domestic structures and international institutions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 3-36.
Risse-Kappen, Thomas (1995b), “Structures of governance and transnational relations: what have we learned?”, Risse-Kappen, Thomas (Der), Bringing transnational relations back in: Nonstate actors, domestic structures and international institutions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 280-313.
Robbins, Bruce (1992) “Comparative Cosmopolitanisms,” Social Text, 31/32: 169-186.
Robbins, Bruce (1998) “Introduction Part I: Actually Existing Cosmopolitanism”, Pheng Cheah ve Bruce Robbins (Der), Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling Beyond the Nation (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota): 1-19.
Rosenau, James (1966), “Pre-theories and Theories and Foreign Policy”, James Charlesworth (Der), Approaches to Comparative and International Politics (New York: Free Press).
Singer, David (1961), “The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations”, World Politics 14(1): 77-92
Tabak, Hüsrev (2016), “Metodolojik Ulusçuluk ve Türkiye’de Dış Politika Çalışmaları”, Uluslararası İlişkiler, 13(3): 21-39.
Tabak, Hüsrev (2018), "Ulrich Beck, Kozmopolitan Sosyoloji ve Uluslararası’sız Uluslararası İlişkiler", Yalvaç, Faruk (Der), Tarihsel Sosyoloji ve Uluslararası İlişkiler, (Ankara: Nika Yayınevi): 135-157.
Waltz, Kenneth (1959), Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis (New York: Columbia University Press).
Waltz, Kenneth (1979), Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).
Wilkenfeld, Jonathan, Gerald W. Hopple, ve Paul J. Rossa (1980), “Threat and Foreign Policy: The Overt Behavior of States in Conflict,” P.J. McGowan ve C.W. Kegley (Der), Threats, Weapons, and Foreign Policy, Sage International Yearbook of Foreign Policy Studies, Cilt 5, (Beverly Hills: Sage).
Wendt, Alexander (1987), “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory”, International Organization 41(3): 335-370.
Wendt, Alexander (1992), “Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics”, International Organization 46(2): 391:425.
Wight, Colin (1999), “They Shoot Dead Horses Don’t They? Locating Agency in the Agent-Structure Problematique”, European Journal of International Relations 5(1):109-142.
Wimmer, Andreas ve Nina Glick Schiller (2002), “Methodological Nationalism and beyond: Nationstate Building, Migration and the Social Sciences,” Global Networks 2(4): 301–334.
Wimmer, Andreas ve Nina Glick Schiller (2003), “Methodological Nationalism, the Social Sciences, and the Study of Migration: An Essay in Historical Epistemology”, International Migration Review 37(2): 576-610.