Avrupa-merkezciliğe yönelik eleştirilere bir tavsiye: Oryantalizm mi, Evrensellik mi?

Abstract

Avrupamerkezcilik akademik alanda, Uluslararası İlişkiler, Tarih ve diğer sosyal bilim disiplinlerinde eleştirilmektedir. Son yıllarda, çok sayıda bilim insanı, birçok bölgesel çalışmaya yönelik eşitsizlikler ile Avrupamerkezci yaklaşımlar arasındaki ilişkileri ortaya koydu. Orta Doğu kökenli birçok akademisyen, Said'in Oryantalizm eleştirisi gibi sömürge sonrası literatürü baskın Avrupamerkezci bakış açılarına örnek olarak gösterdi. Diğerleri, özellikle Wallerstein (1997), sosyal bilimlerde Avrupamerkezci olmakla ilgili baskın bakış açılarının sorunlarını dile getirdiler. Bu nedenle Avrupamerkezcilik, farklı bakış açılarını daraltıp sınırlandırarak arzu edilen evrenselliğe ulaşılması bakımından bir sorun teşkil etmektedir. Bu makale, Avrupa-merkezci bakış açılarının eleştirilerini eleştirmeyi değil, daha çok gerici yaklaşımların tuzaklarına dikkat çekmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Tartışma, sosyal gelişime uygulanabilir alternatif oluşturamama pahasına, oryantalizmi eleştirme retoriği üzerine odaklanmaktadır. Makale üç yönlü bir yaklaşım benimsemektedir. İlk olarak, Uluslararası İlişkiler’de Avrupa-merkezcilik ile kısmen Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorisi ve genel olarak ana akım Tarih ve Sosyal Bilimler tartışılmaktadır. İkinci bölüm, Oryantalizm ve Post-Sömürge edebiyatına odaklanır ve gerici tuzaklar konusunda uyarıda bulunur. Üçüncü bölüm, bilimde evrenselciliğin önemini vurgulamakta ve Amin Maalouf gibi yazarların farkını, MENA bölgelerinden ille de gerici bir yaklaşım benimsemeden farkındalık ve alternatif bakış açıları yaratmaya çalışmanın örnekleri olarak ortaya koymaktadır. Sonuç bölümünde ise analiz tartışılıp ve önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Keywords

• Avrupamerkezcilik
• Uluslararası İlişkiler
• küreselleşme
• Oryantalizm
• yerel kuram

A word of caution on Eurocentrism critiques: Orientalism or Universalism?

Abstract

Eurocentrism is criticized in many academic fields, such as International Relations, History, and many other social science fields. Over the last decades, numerous scholars demonstrated relationships between inequalities and Eurocentric approaches towards many regional studies. Many scholars whose origins are from the Middle East have cited postcolonial literature, such as Said’s criticism of Orientalism, as examples of dominant Euro-centric perspectives. Others cited problems of dominant perspectives in social sciences of being Euro-centric, notably, Wallerstein (1997). Therefore, Eurocentric view, narrowing alternativist perspectives can become a problem in the aimed universality. This article does not intend to criticize the critiques of Euro-centric perspectives but rather caution on pitfalls of reactionary approaches to Eurocentric malaise. The discussion is centered on rhetoric that often criticizes Orientalism, to the expense of not contributing viable alternatives to social development. The article takes a threefold approach. First, Euro-centrism in IR, particularly IR Theory, and mainstream History and Social Sciences, in general, are discussed. The second part focuses on Orientalism and Postcolonial literature and warns on reactionary pitfalls. The third part emphasizes the importance of universalism in literature, arts, and sciences. In order to emphasize universalism, the difference of authors such as Amin Maalouf is provided as examples of those who raised awareness and alternative perspectives from the MENA regions without necessarily taking a reactionary approach. The conclusion discusses the analysis and makes recommendations.

Keywords

• Eurocentrism
• International Relations
• globalization
• Orientalism
• homegrown theory

References

1. Acharya, Amitav. 2014. “Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds: A New Agenda for International Studies” International Studies Quarterly, 58(4): 647-659.
2. Allen, Amy. 2015. The end of progress: Decolonizing the normative foundations of critical theory. New York: Columbia University Press.
3. Ayoob Mohammed. 2002. “Inequality and theorizing in international relations: the case for subaltern realism”. International Studies Review, 4(3): 27-48.
4. Buzan Barry and Lawson George. 2016 “Theory, History, and the Global Transformation.” International Theory 8(3): 502-22. DOI: 10.1017/S175297191600018X
5. Dirioz, Ali Oğuz. 2013. “ORSAM Kitap İncelemesi Serisi: 9; Samarkand by Amin Maalouf” ORSAM, Ortadoğu Analiz, Ağustos 2013 – 5(56): 91-95
6. Dostoyevsky, Fyodr Mihailovich. 1997 (originally 1881). Writers Diary: Volume II Northwestern University Press.
7. Duijvendak, Maarten, de Wilde Jaap. 2016. Reviewing History and IR Journals: Academic Publication Practices and Dominance in World Society. University of Groningen: 1-17 https://research.rug.nl/en/publications/reviewing-history-and-ir-journals-academic-publication-practices-. Accessed 06.06.2021.
8. European Court of Human Rights – ECHR, https://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home&c Accessed 06.06.2021.

9. Ganguly, Keya. 2004. “Temporality and Postcolonial Critique”. In N. Lazarus (Ed.), Cambridge Companion to Postcolonial Literary Studies (pp. 162–179). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
10. Ghazvinian, John. 2009. “Howard Baskerville – An American Hero Iranians Love” Huffington Post, 8 March 2009 (Updated May 25, 2011), http:// www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ghazvinian/howard-bakersville----an_b_172906.html Accessed: 05.06.2021.
11. Gueldry, M., & Liang, W. 2016. “China’s Global Energy Diplomacy: Behavior Normalization Through Economic Interdependence or Resource Neo-mercantilism and Power Politics?.” Journal of Chinese Political Science, 21(2): 217-240.
12. Hertog, Steffen. 2010. “Defying the resource curse: explaining successful state-owned enterprises in rentier states.” World Politics, 62(2):261-301.
13. Hobson, John M. 2020. Multicultural Origins of the Global Economy’: Beyond the Western-Centric Frontier. Cambridge University Press.
14. Hopkirk, Peter. 1990. The Great Game: The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia. London: John Murray,
15. Hopkirk, Peter. 1996. Quest for Kim. London: John Murray,
16. Kang, David. 2010. East Asia Before the West: Five Centuries of Trade and Tribute. New York: Columbia University Press.
17. Karasar, Hasan A. 2008. Türk Dış Politikasında Batı’ya Alternatif Arayışları: Avrasyacılık Örneği. (Turkish.) Demokrasi Platformu, 4(13): 117-128.
18. Kleveman, Lutz. 2003. The new great game: blood and oil in Central Asia. Grove Press.
19. Krishna, Sankaran. 2017. “China is China, not the non-west: David Kang, eurocentrism, and global politics.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 77(1) : 93-109.
20. Kuru, Deniz. 2017. “Homegrown Theorizing: Knowledge, Scholars, Theory .” All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 7 (1):69-86 . DOI: 10.20991/allazimuth.321993
21. Lazarus, Neil. (Ed.) 2004. Cambridge Companion to Postcolonial Literary Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Lewis, Bernard. 2003. The Assassins: A Radical Sect in Islam. Orion, Phoenix.
23. Lewis, Bernard. 2002. What went wrong?: Western impact and Middle Eastern response. Oxford University Press.
24. Lewis, Bernard. 2002. Arabs in history. OUP Oxford.
25. Lewis, Bernard. 1982. The Muslim Discovery of Europe. Norton & Co. New York.
26. Maalouf, Amin. 1988. Samarkand. (Translated from French by: Russell Harris Original Title: “Samarcande” published in French in 1988,) London: Abacus.
27. Maalouf, Amin 1984. The Crusades Through Arab Eyes. New York: Schocken Books. (First published in French in 1983: Les Croisades vues par les Arabes).
28. Matache, Margareta. 2020. Europe’s buried history of racism and slavery. Politico, June 29, Web Site: https://www.politico.eu/article/europes-buried-history-of-racism-and-slavery/ Accessed: 06.06.2021.
29. Nizam’ül Mülk (N.D.) Siyasetname (Translated from Ancient Persian to Turkish by Mehmet Taha Ayar, 14th Publication in 2018). İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, Hasan Ali Yüce Klasikler Dizisi.
30. Onuf, Nicholas. 2017. “Center-Periphery Relations: What Kind of Rule, and Does It Matter?” All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace 6(1): 5-16.
31. Rashid, Ahmed. 2002. Taliban: Islam, Oil and the New Great Game in Central Asia. London: Tauris.
32. Roy, Ananya. 2016. “Who’s afraid of postcolonial theory?” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 40(1): 200-209.
33. Said, Edward. 1978. Orientalism. Pantheon Books.
34. Tickner, Arlene B., and Smith, Karen. (Eds.) 2020. International Relations from the Global South: Worlds of Difference, Routledge.
35. Foreign Policy (2020) “Why Is Mainstream International Relations Blind to Racism? : Ignoring the central role of race and colonialism in world affairs precludes an accurate understanding of the modern state system.” by Bhambra, G.K., Bouka, Y., Persaud, R.B., Rutazibwa, O.U., Thakur, V., Bell, D., Smith, K., Haastrup, T., Seifudein Adem, Foreign Affairs Analysis, JULY 3, 2020, https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/03/why-is-mainstream-international-relations-ir-blind-to-racism-colonialism/ Accessed: 5.04.2021.
36. Tickner, Arlene B. and Wæver, Ole. (Eds.) 2009. International Relations Scholarship around the World. London & New York: Routledge.
37. UNDP, 2020. Human Development Report 2020: The next frontier Human development and the Anthropocene, UNDP, New York.
38. Wæver, Ole. 1998. “The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations,” International Organization, 52: 687–727.
39. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1997. “Eurocentrism and its avatars: The dilemmas of social science.” Sociological Bulletin, 46(1): 21-39.
40. Whiting Kate. 2021. An expert explains: What is RCEP, the world’s biggest trade deal?. World Economic Forum, 18 May 2021. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/05/rcep-world-biggest-trade-deal/ Accessed 06.06.2021.
41. World Bank Data. 2021. GDP (Current US$). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?most_recent_value_desc=true Accessed 29.06.2021.