Küreselleşme Sürecinde Emperyalizm ve Hegemonya Olgularını Yeniden Düşünmek

Year 2022, , 488 - 509, 27.08.2022

Bilal Karabulut , Şafak Oğuz

https://doi.org/10.26745/ahbvuibfd.1100881

Abstract

Küreselleşme süreci insanoğlunun yaşayış, düşünüş ve davranış biçimlerinde değişim yaşanmasına sebep olan önemli bir olgudur. Yaşanan bu değişim süreci hiç kuşkusuz sosyal bilimlerin genelinde ve uluslararası ilişkiler disiplininde de kavram ve olguları yeniden düşünme gerekliliğini ortaya çıkarmıştır. Bu çalışmanın temel amacı; “küreselleşme süreci emperyalizm ve hegemonya olgularını değiştirmiş midir ve eğer değiştirdi ise, bu değişimin boyutu nedir?” sorunsalını analiz etmektir. Çalışmanın temel varsayımı; küreselleşme süreciyle birlikte emperyalizm ve hegemonya olgularının büyük çaplı bir yapısal değişime uğradığıdır. Bu varsayımın dayanağı ise geleneksel devlet merkezli bakış açısının küreselleşme sürecinin yarattığı değişimler nedeniyle emperyalizm ve hegemonya olgularını açıklamakta yetersiz kaldığıdır. Özellikle çok uluslu şirketler gibi devlet-dışı aktörlerin bu değişime öncülük ettiği söylenebilir. Yıllık bütçeleri, çalışan sayıları ve en önemlisi uluslararası ilişkilerdeki etkinlik ve belirleyicilik rolleri göz önünde bulundurulduğunda, orta ve uzun vadede emperyal ya da hegemon yapıların devletlerden ziyade çok uluslu şirketler olabileceği öngörülebilir. Çok uluslu şirketler bu yapısal dönüşümü tek başlarına değil, muhtemel bir öngörü ile gelişmiş ülkelerle birlikte yapacaktır. Bu kapsamda devletlere indirgenmiş olan emperyalizm ve hegemonya olgularının şekillenmesinde yeni ve güçlü bir aktör olarak başta çok uluslu şirketler olmak üzere diğer devlet-dışı aktörlerin de pay sahibi olacağı söylenebilir.

Keywords

Küreselleşme, Emperyalizm, Hegemonya, Çok Uluslu Şirketler, Devlet Dışı Aktörler

Rethinking Imperialism and Hegemonia in the Globalization Process

Abstract

The process of globalization is an important phenomenon that causes changes in the way of life, thinking and behavior of human beings. Undoubtedly, this process of change has revealed the necessity of rethinking concepts and phenomena in social sciences and in the discipline of international relations. The main purpose of this study; “Has the process of globalization changed the phenomena of imperialism and hegemony, and if so, what is the extent of this change?” to analyze the problem. The basic assumption of the study; With the globalization process, the phenomena of imperialism and hegemony have undergone a large-scale structural change. The basis of this assumption is that the traditional state-centered perspective is insufficient to explain the phenomena of imperialism and hegemony due to the changes created by the globalization process. It can be said that especially non-state actors such as multinational companies are leading this change. Considering their annual budgets, number of employees, and most importantly, their effectiveness and decisive role in international relations, it can be predicted that in the medium and long term, imperial or hegemon structures may be multinational corporations rather than states. Multinational companies will make this structural transformation not alone, but together with developed countries with a possible foresight. In this context, it can be said that other non-state actors, especially multinational companies, will have a share as a new and powerful actor in shaping the phenomena of imperialism and hegemony that have been reduced to states.

Keywords

Globalization, Imperialism, Hegemony, Multinational Corporations

References

• Adas, M. (1998). Imperialism and colonialism in comparative perspective. The International History Review, 20(2), 371-388.
• Agnew, J. (2005). Hegemony: the new shape of global power. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
• Amen, M. ve Toly, N., Mccarney, P. ve Segbers, K. (2011). Sighting or Slighting Cities in International Relations. M. Amen, N. Toly, P. McCarney and K. Segbergs (Eds.), Cities and Global governance: new sites for international relations (ss. 13-32). Farnham-Surrey: Ashgate Publishing.
• Andreas, P. ve Nadelmann, E. (2006). Policing the Globe: Criminalization and Crime Control in International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Art of Economics. (2021). En fazla çalışan sayısına sahip olan şirketler. Erişim Tarihi: 23.12.2021, https://art-of-economics.com/2021/04/22/calisan-sayisi-en-fazla-olan-sirketler/
• Beardsworth, R. (2011). Cosmopolitanism and international relations theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Beier, J. M. (2004). Beyond hegemonic state(ment)s of nature -indigenous knowledge and non-state possibilities in international relations-. C. Geeta ve S. Nair (Eds.), Power, postcolonialism and international relations: reading race, gender and class, Oxon: Routledge.
• Brown, C. ve Ainley, K. (2009). Understanding international relations. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Budd, A. (2013). Class, states and international relations: a critical appraisal of Robert Cox and neo-Gramscian theory. Oxon: Routledge.
• Clemens, W.C. (2004). Dynamics of international relations: conflict and mutual gain in an era of global interdependence. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
• Ghosh, P. (2013). International relations. Delhi: PHI Publications.
• Cox, R. W. /1981). Social forces, states and world orders: beyond international relations theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10(2), 126-155.
• Cox, R. W. (1996). Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: an Essay in Method. R. Cox VE T. C. Sinclair (Eds.), Approaches to world order, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Clark, I. (1998). Beyond the great divide: globalization and the theory of international relations. Review of International Studies, 24(4), 481-482.
• Diez, T., Bode, I. ve Da Costa, A.F. (2011). Key concepts in international relations. London: SAGE Publications.
• Euronews. (2020). Dünyada en zengin 10 kişi kim, ne kadar zengin?. Erişim Tarihi: 22.12.2021, https://tr.euronews.com/2020/01/20/dunyada-en-zengin-10-kisi-kim-ne-kadar-zengin
• Euronews. (2021). Dünyanın en değerli şirketleri neler, hangi ülkeden?. Erişim Tarihi: 21.12.2021, https://tr.euronews.com/2020/01/21/dunyanin-en-degerli-sirketleri-neler-hangi-ulkeden
• Galtung, J. (1971). A structural theory of imperialism. Journal of Peace Research, 8(2), 81-117.
• Galtung, J. (2004). Emperyalizmin yapısal teorisi. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 1(2), 25-46.
• Getz, T.R. ve Streets-Salter, H. (2011). Modern imperialism and colonialism A Global Perspective, New Jersey: Pearson.
• Gramsci, A. (1996). Prison notebooks volume 2 (1930). (J. A. Buttigieg, Çev.) New York: Columbia University Press.
• Gray, C. S. (2003). Maintaining effective deterrence. Carlisle: Strategic Studies Institute Publishing.
• Haar, E.V.D. (2009). Classical liberalism and international relations theory. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Halliday, F. (2005). The middle east in international relations: Power, Politics and Ideology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hobden, S. ve Hobson, J. M.. (2002). On the road towards an historicised world sociology. S. Hobden ve J. M. Hobson (Eds.), Historical sociology of international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Horvart, R.J. (1972). A definition of colonialism”, Current Anthropology, 13(1), 45-57.
• Keohane, R. O. (2005). After hegemony: cooperation and discord in the world political economy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
• Ikenberry, G. J. ve Mastanduno, M. (2003). International Relations Theory and The Search for Regional Stability. G. J. Ikenberry ve M. Mastanduno (Eds.), International relations theory and the Asia-Pacific. Columbia: Columbia University Press.
• Ives, P. (2004). Language and hegemony in Gramsci. London: Pluto Press.
• Jones, RJ.B., Jones, P.M., Dark, K. ve Peters, J. (2001). Introduction to international relations. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
• Knopf, N. ve Jeffrey W. (2009). Three Items in One: Deterrence as Concept, Research Program, and Political Issue. T. V. Paul, P. M. Morgan ve J. J. Wirtz (Eds.), Complex deterrence strategy in the global age. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Krasner, S. D. (2007). Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables. B. A. Simmons ve R. H. Steinberg (Eds.), International law and international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kubalkova, V., Onuf, N. ve Kowert, P. (1998). Constructing Constructivism. V. Kubalkova, N. Onuf ve P. Kowert (Eds.), International relations in a constructed World. New York: M. E. Sharpe.
• Laferriere, E. ve Stoett, P.J. (1999). International relations theory and ecological thought: towards a synthesis. London: Routledge.
• Lears, T. J. J. (1985). The concept of cultural hegemony: problems and possibilities. The American Historical Review, 90(3), 567-593.
• Mattingly, D.J. (2011). Imperialism, power, and identity: experiencing the Roman Empire. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
• Mgonja, G., Boniface, E.S. ve Makombe, I.A.M. (2009). Debating international relations and its relevance to the third World. African Journal of Political Science and International Relations, 3(1), 027-037.
• Nölke, A. (2014). World-system Theory. S. Schieder ve M. Spindler (Eds.), Theories of international relations. Oxon: Routledge.
• Nye, J.S. ve Keohane, R.O. (1971). Transnational relations and world politics: an introduction. International Organization, 25(3), 329-349.
• Paolini, A. J., Elliot, A. ve Moran, A. (1999). Navigating modernity: postcolonialism, identity, and international relations. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
• Raffo, V.I., Sriram, C.L., Spiro, P. J. ve Biersteker, T. J. (2007). Introduction: international law and international politics -old divides, new developments-. T.J. Biersteker, P. J. Spiro, C.L. Sriram ve V.I. Raffo (Eds.), International law and international relations: bridging theory and practice. Oxon: Routledge.
• Reeves, J. (2004). Culture and international relations: narratives, natives and tourists. Oxon: Routledge.
• Roberson, B.A. (2002). Probing the Idea and Prospects for International Society. B.A. Roberson (Ed.), International Society and the development of international relations theory. London: Continuum.
• Scholte, J.A. (1997). Global capitalism and the state. International Affairs, 73(3), 427–452.
• Screpanti, E. (1999). Capitalist forms and the essence of capitalism. Review of International Political Economy, 6(1), 1-26.
• Shah, T.S. ve Philpott, D. (2011). The Fall and Rise of Religion in International Relations -History and Theory-. J. L Snyder (Ed.), Religion and international relations theory. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Sikkink, K. (1998). Transnational politics, international relations theory, and human rights. Political Science and Politics, 31(3), 517-523.
• Sklair, L. (2010). From international relations to alternative globalisations. Journal of Critical Globalisation Studies, (3), 114-127.
• Steans, J., Pettiford, L., Diez, T. ve El-Anis, I. (2013). An introduction to international relations theory: perspectives and themes. Oxon: Routledge.
• Stoddart, M.C.J. (2007). Ideology, hegemony, discourse: a critical review of theories of knowledge and power. Social Thought & Research, 28, 191-225.
• Sutch, P. (2001). Ethics, justice and international relations: constructing an international community. London: Routledge.
• Swedberg, R. (2005). The Economic Sociology of Capitalism: An Introduction and Agenda. V. Nee ve R. Swedberg (Eds.), The economic sociology of capitalism. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
• Wolfe, P. (1997). History and imperialism: a century of theory, from Marx to postcolonialism. The American Historical Review, 102(2), 388-420.