Küresel sosyete ülkeleri ve ötekileştirilmiş avamlar: İnşa edilmiş egemenlik kabramı üzerine " 3. Dünya " cılığın bir eleştirisi

“Birinci”, “ikinci” veya “Üçüncü Dünya”, “Kuzey-Güney” veya “Batı-Doğu” ve “merkezçeper” olarak yapılan tanımlamalar bilgiden bağımsız bir gerçeğin ampirik bir yansıması değil, uluslararası iliskilerde güç mücadelesinin bizzat ortasında kalan, politik olarak insa edilmis, son derece önemli sembollerdir. Uluslararası iliskilerde güç mücadelesinin bir yönü materyal kaynakların paylasımında göreceli avantaj elde etmek ise, önemli bir diğer yönü de bu sembollerin ifade ettiği mânâlarının kontrol edilmesidir; çünkü sembollerden olusan söylem hiyerarsisi en az materyal güç hiyerarsisi kadar –ve bir bakıma ondan da fazla- öneme haizdir. Bu çalısma, Đngiliz ekolü ve elestirel coğrafya altyapılarından yararlanarak Avrupa merkezli egemenlik kavramı üzerine uluslararası iliskilerde küresel bir hâkimiyet kuran ve geri kalan politika yapıları ötekilestirilmis avamlar olarak niteleyen söylemin bir elestirisini sunmaktadır.

“Global society states” and oterhered commons: A critic of third worldism based on sovereigny as a social construct

Definitions based on “First, second and third worlds,” “North-South”, “East-West”, “Center- Periphery” are not empirical reflections of outside reality independent of knowledge, but are politically constructed symbols at the core of power struggle in international relations. If one part of international relations is to gain relative advantage on the control of material capabilities, another important aspect of it is to control meanings of symbols, for symbol hierarchy is at least as important as material power hierarchy. Using the theoretical contributions of the English School and Critical Geography, this study presents a critical analysis against European-centric sovereigny concept that seeks hegemonic control on global power relations while excluding othered commons constituted bu rest of the world.

PDF

___

Acar, Cemal, Soğuk Savas Dönemi Süper Güçlerin Hâkimiyet Kavgası, (Ankara: Mm Yayıncılık), 1991.
• Anderson, Bedenict, Imagined Communities, (New ed.), London, New York: Verso, 2006.
• Austin, J.L. How To Do Things With Words, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 1962.
• Beer, Francis A. ve Robert Hariman (der.), Post Realism: Rhetorical Turn in International Relations, MSU Pres, 1996.
• Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, New York: Columbia University Pres, 1995 [1977].
• Campbell, David, Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1992.
• Correlates of War Project, National Capabilities Data Documentation, Version 3.0.
• Dahl, Robert A., “The Concept of Power”, Behavioral Science, 2 (1957), 202-203.
• Davutoğlu, Ahmet Stratejik Derinlik: Türkiye’nin Uluslararası Konumu, Küre Yayınları, 2001.
Deutsch, Karl M., The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication and Control, New York: The Free Press, 1963
• Deutsch, Karl M., The Analysis of International Relations, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1968.
• George, J im, Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations,Boulder: Lynne Reinner, 1994.
• Jackson, R.H and P. Owens, “The Evolution of World Society” (içinde) John Baylis and Steve Smith (der.). The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
• Kapani, Münci Politika Bilimine Giris, Bilgi Yayınevi, 2001.
• Kipling, Rudyard, “The White Man's Burden,” McClure's Magazine 12 (Feb. 1899).
• Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
• Laswell Harold D. and Abraham Kaplan, Power and Society, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950.
• Morgenthau, Hans J., (Revised by Kenneth W. Thompson) Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Mc Graw Hill, 1993 [1948].
• Neumann, Iver “Making Europe: The Turkish Other”, içinde Iver Neumann, Uses of the Other, The “East” in European Identity Formation, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1999, ss. 39-63.
• Ó’Tuathail, Gearóid, Critical Geopolitics, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996.
• Said, Edward Orientalism, London, Penguin Books, 1978.
• Shapiro, Michael Reading the Postmodern Polity, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Pres, 1992.
• Stone, Leonard A., “Late Ottoman and Modern Turkish Perceptions of Europe: Continuity and Change”, Turkish Studies, Vol. 3 (2), (Autumn 2002), ss. 181-199.
• Vali, Frenc A., Bridge Across the Bosporus, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1971.
• Wallerstein, Immanuel The Modern World-System, New York: Academic Press, 1974.
• Walker, R. B. J. Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
• Waltz ,Kenneth N., “Reductionist and Systemic Theories” ve “Political Structures” Robert O. Keohane (der.), Neorealism and Its Critics, New York: Columbia.
• Wendt, Alexander and Daniel Friedheim “Hierarchy Under Anarchy: Informal Empire and the East German State”, International Organization, 49, 689-721, 1995.
• Wight, Martin Systems of States, Leicester University Press and London School of Economics, 1977.
• Thucydides, “Melyan Diyaloğu,” Pelopenez Savasları Tarihi http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/melian.htm