Uluslararası Siyaset Sosyolojisi, Biyo-iktidar ve Salgın Hastalıklar

Abstract

2020 yılının ilk aylarında küresel bir sağlık krizine dönüşen Kovid-19 salgını, toplum ile birey arasındaki ilişkinin siyasal, toplumsal ve biyolojik boyutlarının tekrardan altını çizerken, bu ilişkilerin uluslararası ilişkiler analizi tarafından daha fazla dikkate alınması gerekliliğini bize göstermiştir. Salgın hastalık, bireyin vücudunda gerçekleşen bir olgu olmasına rağmen, toplumsal boyutuyla dikkat çekmektedir. Uluslararası ilişkiler disiplininde günden güne artan bir ilginin odağında olan uluslararası siyaset sosyolojisi, sosyal teori ve uluslararası ilişkiler disiplinini birbirine yakınlaştırırken, Kovid-19 sürecini anlamamız için bize yeni entelektüel araçlar sağlamaktadır. Bu araçların başında, birey ile toplum arasındaki ilişkilerin hem siyasal ve toplumsal boyutlarını hem de biyolojik boyutlarını dikkate alan biyo-iktidar kavramı gelmektedir. Fransız düşünür Michel Foucault tarafından ortaya atılan bu kavram, iktidarın yeni bir alanı olarak sağlığın ve insan biyolojisinin altını çizer ve ana akım uluslararası ilişkiler kuramlarının ve çalışmaların dikkatinden kaçan egemenliğin yeni bir modelinin ortaya çıkışını görmemize yardımcı olur. Bu bağlamda, çalışmada uluslararası ilişkilerde değişen iç/dış ikiliği dikkate alınarak, bu iktidar modeli ve gelişen sağlık güvenliği ekseninde Türkçe Uluslararası İlişkiler literatürüne katkı yapmaya çalışılacaktır.

Keywords

• Uluslararası İlişkiler Kuramları
• Salgın Hastalıklar
• Biyo-iktidar
• Uluslararası Siyaset Sosyolojisi

International Political Sociology, Biopower and Epidemics

Abstract

The Covid-19 outbreak, which turned into a global health crisis in 2020, once again underlined the political, social and biological dimensions of the relationship between the society and the individual and also shows us the necessity of international relations analysis that takes these relations into account. Although epidemic disease is a phenomenon that occurs in the body of the individual, it draws attention with its social dimension. International Political Sociology (IPS), which is at the focus of increasing interest in the discipline of international relations, provides us with new intellectual tools to understand Covid-19 while building a bridge between social theory and the discipline of international relations. One of these tools is the concept of bio-power, which takes into account both the political and social dimensions of the relationship between the individual and the society, as well as its biological dimensions. This concept, introduced by French philosopher Michel Foucault, underscores health and human biology as a new domain of power and helps us see the emergence of a new model of sovereignty that has escaped the attention of mainstream international relations theories and studies. In this context, in this paper, we will attempt to contribute to the international relations literature in Turkish within the axis of such model of power and health security developed in years, considering the changing inside/outside dichotomy in international relations.

Keywords

• International Relations Theories
• International Political Sociology
• Pandemics/Epidemics
• Biopower

References

1. Alchon, S. A. (2003). A pest in the land: new world epidemics in a global perspective. Albuquerque: UNM Press.
2. Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London and New York: Verso books.
3. Ashley, R. K. (1988). Untying the sovereign state: A double reading of the anarchy problematique. Millennium, 17(2), 227-262. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298880170020901
4. Bartelson, J. (1995). A genealogy of sovereignty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Bigo, D. and Walker, R. B. (2007). Political sociology and the problem of the international. Millennium, 35(3), 725-739. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298070350030401
6. Brooks, F. (2003). The impact of disease. In George Raudzens (Eds.), Technology, Disease, and Colonial Conquests, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries: Essays Reappraising the Guns and Germs Theories (pp. 127-166). Boston: Brill Academic Publishers.
7. Campbell, D. (1992). Writing security: United States foreign policy and the politics of identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
8. Cohn, S.K. Jr. (2002). The Black Death transformed: disease and culture in early renaissance Europe. London and New York: Arnold and Oxford University Press.

9. Curtis, B. (2002). Foucault on governmentality and population: The impossible discovery. Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, 27(4), 505-533. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org
10. Dillon, M. and Lobo-Guerrero, L. (2008). Biopolitics of security in the 21st century: An introduction. Review of International Studies, 34(2), 265-292. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org
11. Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality: An introduction. New York: Vintage.
12. Foucault, M. (2003). Society must be defended. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
13. Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population: lectures at the Collège de France, 1977-78. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
14. Giddens, A. (1985). The nation-state and violence. Cambridge: Polity Press.
15. Guillaume, X. and Bilgin, P. (2016). Routledge handbook of international political sociology. London and New York: Routledge.
16. Halliday, F. (1999). Revolution and world politics: The rise and fall of the sixth great power. Durham: Duke University Press.
17. Halliday, Fred (2002). For an international sociology. In S. Hobden and J. Hobson (Eds.), Historical Sociology of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity (Vol. 14). Oxford: Blackwell.
19. Herlihy, D. (1997). The Black Death and the transformation of the West. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.
20. Hobson, J. (2002). What’s at stake in bringing historical sociology back into international relations?, In S. Hobden and J. Hobson (Eds.), Historical Sociology of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Howell, A. (2016). Health, medicine and the bio-sciences. In X. Guillaume, and P. Bilgin (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of International Political Sociology (pp. 185-193). London and New York: Routledge.
22. Inayatullah, N. and Blaney, D. L. (2004). International relations and the problem of difference. London and New York: Routledge.
23. Kessler, O. (2009). Toward a sociology of the international? International relations between anarchy and world society. International Political Sociology, 3(1), 87-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-5687.2008.00065.x
24. Lilja, M. and Vinthagen, S. (2014). Sovereign power, disciplinary power and biopower: resisting what power with what resistance?. Journal of Political Power, 7(1), 107-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2014.889403
25. Lundborg, T. and Vaughan-Williams, N (2013) The limits of international relations: RBJ Walker’s inside/outside: International relations as political theory. In H. Bliddal and P. Wilson (Eds.), Classics of International Relations, Abingdon (pp. 220-229). London and New York: Routledge.
26. Massey, D. (1996). Politicising space and place. Scottish Geographical Magazine, 112(2), 117-123. https://doi.org/10.1080/14702549608554458
27. McNeill, H. W. (1998). Plagues and people. New York: Anchor Books.
28. Nabers, D. and Stengel, F. A. (2019). International/global political sociology. In R. Marlin-Bennett (Eds.), Oxford research encyclopedia of international studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.371
29. Sigerist, H. E. (2018). Civilization and disease. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
30. Skocpol, T. (1979). States and social revolutions: A comparative analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge University Press.
31. Tabak, H. (2016). Metodolojik ulusçuluk ve Türkiye'de dış politika çalışmaları. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 13(51), 21-39. Erişim Adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/uidergisi/
32. Walker, R. B. (1993). Inside/outside: International relations as political theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33. Watson, A. (1992). The evolution of international society. London: Routledge.
34. Yalvaç, F. (1991). The sociology of the state and the sociology of international relations. In M. Banks and M. Shaw (Eds.), State and Society in International Relations (pp. 93-113). Hemel Hempstead: Harvester.
35. Yalvaç, F. (2013). Tarihsel sosyoloji ve uluslararası ilişkiler: jeopolitik, kapitalizm ve devletler sistemi. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 10(38), 3-28. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/uidergisi/