PROFESYONELLEŞMEDEN MEŞRUİYET KRİZİNE SOSYOLOJİNİN KULLANIMI

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 14, 130 - 160, 10.07.2017

Anıl Mühürdaroğlu

Öz

Sosyolojinin bir disiplin olarak
kuruluşu ve kurumsallaşması on dokuzuncu yüzyılın sonlarında gerçekleşmekle
birlikte sosyolojinin profesyonelleşmesi İkinci Dünya Savaşı sonrası dönemi
buldu. Sosyolojinin profesyonelleşmesini takiben, sosyolojik bilginin
meşruiyeti sosyolojinin siyasa yapımıyla ilişkisi bağlamında sorgulandı. Bilgi
üreticilerinin kurumlarla ilişkisi yerine bilgi üretiminin kendi kurumsal altyapısına
odaklanan görüşlerin yaygınlaşması ile birlikte sosyolojinin bilimsel statüsü
üzerine yürütülen tartışmalar yeni bir boyut kazandı. Bu süreçte sosyoloji
açısından yeni bir sorunun kaynağı, kendi bilimselliğini ölçmek için referans
aldığı pozitif bilimlerin yaşadığı statü kaybıydı. Bu çalışmada öncelikle
sosyolojinin profesyonelleşmesinin modernitenin kurumsal altyapısı ile ilişkisi
ele alınacak, ardından 1970’lerle birlikte hem bu altyapının, hem de bilimsel
bilginin meşruiyetine dair yeni tartışmaların sosyolojinin disipliner kimliği
ve meşruiyeti açısından ortaya çıkardığı yeni sorunlar irdelenecek, son olarak
bu tartışmalara dair son yıllardaki öneriler değerlendirilecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

sosyolojinin kullanımı, disiplinler-arasılık, epistemik kültür, disipliner kimlik, profesyonelleşme, bilimsel meşruiyet

Kaynakça

• Abrams, Philip, “The Uses of British Sociology, 1831-1981”, Martin Bulmer (der.), Essays on the History of British Sociological Research içinde. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985.
• Althusser, Louis, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes Towards and Investigation)”, Louis Althusser, Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays içinde;çev. Ben Brewster; Monthly Review Press, New York, 1971.
• Arnason, Johann P., “Sociology, Critique and Modernity: Views across the European Divide”, Comparative Sociology, Cilt 2 (3), 2003, s. 441-461.
• Bauman, Zygmunt, Sosyolojik Düşünmek, çev. Abdullah Yılmaz; Ayrıntı, İstanbul, 2015.
• Becher, Tony ve Trowler, Paul R., Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Discipline, The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, 2001.
• Beck, Ulrich, “The Cosmopolitan Society and Its Enemies”; Theory, Culture & Society, Cilt 19 (1-2), 2002, s. 17-44.
• Becker, Howard S., “Whose side are We On?”, Social Problems, Cilt 14 (3), 1967, s. 239-247.
• Ben-David, Joseph, “The State of Sociological Theory and the Sociological Community: A Review Article”, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Cilt 15 (4), 1973, s. 448-472.
• Bernstein, Richard J., The Restructuring of Social and Political Theory, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995.
• Bloor, David, Knowledge and Social Imagery, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1991.
• Bottomore, Tom, “Sosyoloji”; Tom Bottomore (haz.), Marksist Düşünce Sözlüğü içinde, İletişim, İstanbul, 2002.
• Bourdieu, Pierre, “The Specificity of the Scientific Field and the Social Conditions of the Progress of Reason”, Social Science Information, Cilt 14 (6), 1975, s. 19-47.
• Burawoy, Michael, “For Public Sociology”, American Sociological Review, Cilt 70, 2005, s. 4-28.
• _______________, “Sociology and Interdisciplinarity: The Promise and the Perils”, Philippine Sociological Review, Cilt 61, 2013, s. 7-20.
• Dahrendorf, Ralf. “Out of Utopia: Toward a Reorientation of Sociological Analysis”, American Journal of Sociology, Cilt 64 (2), 1958, s. 115-127.
• Delanty, Gerard, Challenging Knowledge: The University in the Knowledge Society, The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, 2001.
• Durkheim, Emile, The Rules of Sociological Method, çev. S. A. Solovay ve J. H. Mueller, The Free Press of Glencoe, Londra, 1964.
• Elias, Norbert, “Problems of Involvement and Detachment”, The British Journal of Sociology, Cilt 7 (3), s. 226-252.
• Foucault, Michel, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977, Colin Gordon (der.), çev. Colin Gordon (v.d.), Pantheon Books, New York, 1980.
• Gouldner, Alvin W., The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology, Eqouinox Books, New York, 1971.
• Gülbenkian Komisyonu, Sosyal Bilimleri Açın: Sosyal Bilimlerin Yeniden Yapılanması üzerine Rapor, çev. Şirin Tekeli, Metis, İstanbul, 2000.
• Haraway, Donna, “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privelege of Partial Perspective”, Feminist Studies, Cilt 14 (3), 1988, s.575-599.
• Harding, Sandra, “Introduction: Standpoint Theory as a Site of Political, Philosophical, and Scientific Debate”. Sandra Harding (der.), The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies içinde, Routledge, New York, 2004.
• Harvey, Lee, “The Nature of ‘Schools’ in the Sociology of Knowledge: The Case of the ‘Chicago School’”, The Sociological Review, Cilt 35 (2), 1987, s. 245-278.
• Horton, John, “Order and Conflict Theories of Social Problems as Competing Ideologies”, James E. Curtis ve John W. Petras (der.), The Sociology of Knowledge: A Reader içinde, Praeger Publishers, New York, 1970.
• Knorr-Cetina, Karin, “Culture in Global Knowledge Societies: Knowledge Cultures and Epistemic Cultures”, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Cilt 32 (4), 2007, s.361-375.
• Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, The Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1996.
• Lasswell, Harold D., “The Policy Sciences”, Daniel Lerner ve Harold D. Lasswell (der.), The Policy Sciences: Recent Developments in Scope and Method içinde, Stanford University Press, California, 1959.
• Latham, Michael E., “Modernization”, Theodore M. Porter ve Dorothy Ross (der.), The Cambridge History of Science, Vol. 7, The Modern Social Sciences içinde, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2003.
• Latour, Bruno, We Have Never Been Modern, çev. Catherine Porter; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1993.
• ____________, Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005.
• Lynd, Robert S., “The Implications of Economic Planning for Sociology”, American Sociological Review, Cilt 9 (1), 1944, s. 14-20.
• Mesny, Ann, “Sociology for Whom? The Role of Sociology in Reflexive Modernity”, Canadian Journal of Sociology, Cilt 23 (2/3), 1998, s.159-178.
• Mills, C. Wright, The Sociological Imagination, Oxford University Press, New York, 2000.
• Montag, Warren, ““The Soul is the Prison of the Body”: Althusser and Foucault, 1970-1975)”; Yale French Studies, Sayı 88, 1995, s.53-77.
• Musgrave, Alan E., “Kuhn’s Second Thoughts”, Mark J. Smith (der.), Philosophy and Methodology of the Social Sciences, Cilt 3 içinde; Sage, Londra, 2005.
• Nalbantoğlu, Hasan Ünal, Arayışlar: Bilim, Kültür, Üniversite, İletişim, İstanbul, 2009.
• Parsons, Talcott, “The Prospects of Sociological Theory”, American Sociological Review, Cilt 15 (1), 1950, s. 3-16.
• Pinch, T. J., “Kuhn – The Conservative and Radical Interpretations: Are Some Mertonians ‘Kuhnians’ and Some Kuhnians ‘Mertonians’?”, Social Studies of Science, Cilt 27, 1997, s. 465-482.
• Purvis, Trevor ve Hunt, Alan, “Discourse, Ideology, Discourse, Ideology, Discourse, Ideology...”, The British Journal of Sociology, Cilt 44 (3), 1993, s. 473-499.
• Ross, Dorothy, “Changing Countours of the Social Science Disciplines”, Theodore M. Porter ve Dorothy Ross (der.), The Cambridge History of Science, Vol. 7, The Modern Social Sciences içinde, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2003.
• Skocpol, Theda ve Finegold, Kenneth, “State Capacity and Economic Intervention in the Early New Deal”; Political Science Quarterly, Cilt 97 (2), 1982, s. 255-278.
• Smelser, Neil, “On Comparative Analysis, Interdisciplinarity and Internationalization in Sociology”, International Sociology, Cilt 18 (4), 2003, s. 643-657.
• Smith, Anthony D., “Nationalism and Classical Social Theory”, British Journal of Sociology, Cilt 34 (1), 1983, s.19-38.
• Steinmetz, George, “Transdisciplinarity as a Nonimperial Encounter: For an Open Sociology”; Thesis Eleven, No. 91, 2007, s. 48-65.
• Sulkunen, Pekka, “‘Society’ on its Own: The Sociological Promise Today”; European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology, Cilt 1 (2), 2014, s. 180-195.
• Urry, John, “Thomas S. Kuhn as a Sociologist of Knowledge”; The British Journal of Sociology, Cilt 24 (4), 1973, s. 462-473.
• _________, Mekanları Tüketmek, çev. Rahmi G. Öğdil; Ayrıntı, İstanbul, 1999.
• Wagner, Peter, “Science of Society Lost: On the Failure to Establish Sociology in Europe during the “Classical” Period”; Peter Wagner, Björn Wittrock ve RichardWhitley (der.), Discourse on Society: The Shaping of the Social Science Disciplines içinde; Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1991.
• Wallerstein, Immanuel, “The Heritage of Sociology, the Promise of Social Science”, Immanuel Wallerstein, The End of the World as We Know It: Social Science for the Twenty-First Century içinde, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1999.
• Wilson, Woodrow, “The Study of Administration”, Political Science Quarterly, Cilt 2(2), 1887, s. 197-222.
• Wittrock, Björn, Wagner, Peter ve Wollmann, Hellmut, “Social Science and the Modern State: Policy Knowledge and Political Institutions in Western Europe and the United States”, Peter Wagner (vd.) (der), Social Sciences and Modern States: National Experiences and Theoretical Crossroads içinde, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991.
• Znaniecki, Florian, “European and American Sociology after Two World Wars”, American Journal of Sociology, Cilt 56 (3), 1950, s. 217-221.