Göç Kuramında Yapı ve Fail Kavramları Üzerine Bazı Görüşler

Year 2015, Issue: 2, 188 - 218, 01.07.2015

Oliver Bakewell

Abstract

Bu makale yapı ve fail kavramları arasındaki karmaşık ilişkiyi ve bunların göç kuramına nasıl dahil edildiğini incelemektedir. Makalede tutarlı ve sağlam bir göç kuramı temeli geliştirme çabalarının yapı-fail çıkmazı tarafından engellendiği savunulmaktadır: bu bağlamda bazı yaklaşımlar işlevselciliğe fazla eğilirken diğerleri ise yapısalcılığa kaymaktadır. Orta yol arayanlar ise göç süreçlerinde yapı ve fail kavramları arasındaki dengeyi ortaya koyma açısından Giddens’ın yapılaşma kavramından yararlanmaktadırlar. Bu makale yapılaşmanın başta aldatıcı olsa da göç kuramı için önemli gelişmelere ön ayak olmayı başardığını ortaya koymaktadır. Bu da yapılaşma kuramının uygulamasındaki başarısızlıktan ziyade yapılaşma kuramındaki kuramsal zayıflığın bir sonucudur; bu sav da yapılaşmada bulunan ikiye bölünmüşlüğün eleştirel gerçekçi kritiğine dayanmaktadır. Eleştirel gerçekçiliğin yapı ve fail kavramlarının göç süreçlerinde daha kapsamlı incelenmesi için daha verimli bir yol sunduğu öne sürülmektedir. Makale göç kuramına eleştirel gerçekçi bir yaklaşımın kısa bir taslağını sunarak bitmekte ve bu yaklaşımın yapı-fail çıkmazını aşmak için bir çözüm yolu sunacağını savunmaktadır

Keywords

Yapı, fail, göç, eleştirel gerçekçilik, yapılaşma, yöntembilim

Some Reflections on Structure and Agency in Migration Theory

Abstract

This paper explores the complex relationship between structure and agency and the way it has been incorporated into migration theory. It argues that attempts to develop a coherent and robust body of migration theory have been thwarted by a structure–agency impasse: some approaches lean too close to functionalism while others veer into structuralism. Those who search for middle ground have tended to draw on Giddens’ notion of structuration as a way of articulating the balance between structure and agency in migration processes. The article shows that, while structuration is beguiling, it has failed to offer any significant advances for migration theory. This is a result of theoretical weaknesses in structuration theory rather than a failure of its application; this argument is based on a critical realist critique of the dualism inherent in structuration. It is suggested that critical realism offers a fruitful avenue for a more sophisticated analysis of structure and agency in migration processes. The article ends with a brief outline of a critical realist approach to migration theory and argues that this may offer a way around the structure–agency impasse

Keywords

Structure,  agency,  migration,  critical realism,  structuration,  methodology

References

• Arango, J. (2000), ‘Explaining migration: a critical view’, International Soci- al Science Journal, 52(165): 283-96.
• Archer, M.S. (1982), ‘Morphogenesis versus structuration: on combining structure and action’, British Journal of Sociology, 33(4): 455-83.
• Archer, M.S. (1995), Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Archer, M.S (1996), ‘Social integration and system integration: developing the distinction’, Sociology, 30(4): 679-99.
• Bakewell, O. (2000), ‘Repatriation and self-settled refugees in Zambia: brin- ging solutions to the wrong problems’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 13(4): 356-73.
• Bakewell, O. (2008), ‘Research beyond the categories: the importance of po- licy irrelevant research into forced migration’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 21(4): 432-53.
• Bhaskar, R. (1979), The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences. Brighton: Harvester.
• Bhaskar, R. (1989), Reclaiming Reality: A Critical Introduction to Contem- porary Philosophy. London: Verso.
• Boswell, C. (2008), ‘Combining economics and sociology in migration the- ory’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(4): 549-66.
• Boswell, C. & Mueser, P.R. (2008), ‘Economics and interdisciplinary appro- aches in migration research’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(4): 519-29.
• Boyd, M. (1989), ‘Family and personal networks in international migration: recent developments and new agendas’, International Migration Review, 23(3): 638-70.
• Carter, B. & New, C. (2004), ‘Introduction: realist social theory and empi- rical research’, in Carter, B. and New, C. (eds) Making Realism Work: Realist Social Theory and Empirical Research. London: Routledge, 1-20.
• Castles, S. (2007), ‘Twenty-first-century migration as a challenge to socio- logy’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 33(3): 351-71.
• Castles, S. (2010), ‘Understanding global migration: a social transformation perspective’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(10): in press.
• Conway, D. (2007), ‘Caribbean transnational migration behaviour: recon- ceptualising its strategic flexibility’, Population, Space and Place, 13(6): 415-31.
• de Haas, H. (2010), ‘The internal dynamics of migration processes: a theore- tical inquiry’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(10): this issue.
• De Jong, G.F. & Fawcett, J.T. (1981), ‘Motivations for migration: an as- sessment and a value expectancy research model’, in De Jong, G.F. and Gardner, R.W. (eds) Migration Decision Making: Multidisciplinary Ap- proaches to Microlevel Studies in Developed and Developing Countries. London: Pergamon Press.
• De Jong, G.F. & Gardner, R.W. (eds) (1981), Migration Decision Making: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Microlevel Studies in Developed and Developing Countries. London: Pergamon Press.
• De´pelteau, F. (2008), ‘Relational thinking: a critique of co-deterministic theories of structure and agency’, Sociological Theory, 26(1): 51-73.
• Elder-Vass, D. (2007), ‘Reconciling Archer and Bourdieu in an emergentist theory of action’, Sociological Theory, 25(4): 325-46.
• Faist, T. (2000), The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration and Transnational Social Spaces. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Findlay, A.M. & Li, F.L.N. (1999), ‘Methodological issues in researching migration’, The Professional Geographer, 51(1): 50-9.
• Folbre, N. (1986), ‘Cleaning house: new perspectives on households and economic development’, Journal of Development Economics, 22(1): 5-40.
• Gardner, R.W. (1981), ‘Macrolevel influences in the migration decision pro- cess’, in De Jong, G.F. and Gardner, R.W. (eds) Migration Decision Ma- king: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Microlevel Studies in Developed and Developing Countries. London: Pergamon Press.
• Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1968), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
• Goss, J. & Lindquist, B. (1995), ‘Conceptualizing international labor migra- tion: a structuration perspective’, International Migration Review, 29(2): 317-51.
• Gregson, N. (1989), ‘On the (ir)relevance of structuration theory for em- pirical research’, in Held, D. and Thompson, J.B. (eds) Social Theory of Modern Societies: Anthony Giddens and his Critics. Cambridge: Camb- ridge University Press, 235-48.
• Halfacree, K.H. (1995), ‘Household migration and the structuration of pat- riarchy: evidence from the USA’, Progress in Human Geography, 19(2): 159-82.
• Halfacree, K.H. & Boyle, P.J. (1993), ‘The challenge facing migration resear- ch: the case for a biographical approach’, Progress in Human Geography, 17(3): 333-48.
• Held, D. & Thompson, J.B. (eds) (1989), Social Theory of Modern Socie- ties: Anthony Giddens and his Critics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press.
• King, A. (1999), ‘Against structure: a critique of morphogenetic social theo- ry’, Sociological Review, 47(2): 199-227.
• King, A. (2007), ‘Why I am not an individualist’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 37(2):
• Kritz, M.M., Keely, C.B. & Tomasi, S.M. (eds) (1981), Global Trends in Migration: Theory and Research on International Population Move- ments. New York: Centre for Migration Studies.
• Long, N. (2001), Development Sociology: Actor Perspectives. London: Routledge.
• Marks, S. & Rathbone, R. (1982), ‘Introduction’, in Marks, S. and Rath- bone, R. (eds) Industrialisation and Social Change in South Africa. Lon- don: Longman, 1-43.
• Massey, D.S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino, A. & Taylor, J.E. (1993), ‘Theories of international migration: a review and appraisal’, Population and Development Review, 19(3): 431-66.
• Massey, D.S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino, A. & Taylor, J.E. (1998), Worlds in Motion: Understanding International Migration at the End of the Millennium. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Morawska, E. (2001), ‘Structuring migration: the case of Polish income-see- king travelers to the West’, Theory and Society, 30(1): 47-80.
• Murray, C. (1981), Families Divided: The Impact of Migrant Labour in Lesotho. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Parker, J. (2000), Structuration. Buckingham: Open University Press.
• Porpora, D. (2007), ‘On Elder-Vass: refining a refinement’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 37(2): 195-200.
• Portes, A. (2010), ‘Migration and social change: some conceptual reflecti- ons’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(10): in press.
• Pratt, A.C. (1995), ‘Putting critical realism to work: the practical implications for geographical research’, Progress in Human Geography, 19(1): 61-74.
• Pryor, R.J. (1981), ‘Integrating international and internal migration theo- ries’, in Kritz, M.M., Keely, C.B. & Tomasi, S.M. (eds) Global Trends in Migration: Theory and Research on International Population Move- ments. New York: Centre for Migration Studies, 110-29.
• Richmond, A.H. (1988), ‘Sociological theories of international migration: the case of refugees’, Current Sociology, 36(2): 7-25.
• Richmond, A.H. (1993), ‘Reactive migration: sociological perspectives on refugee movements’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 6(1): 5-24.
• Sayer, R.A. (1992), Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach. London: Routledge (2nd edition).
• Sayer, R.A. (2000), Realism and Social Science. London: Sage.
• Scott, J. & Marshall, G. (2009), A Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, online edition.
• Sewell, W.H. (1992), ‘A theory of structure: duality, agency and transforma- tion’, American Journal of Sociology, 98(1): 1-29.
• Stones, R. (2001), ‘Refusing the realism_structuration divide’, European Journal of Social Theory, 4(2): 177-97.
• Thrift, N. (1985), ‘Bear and mouse or bear and tree? Anthony Giddens‘s reconstitution of social theory’, Sociology, 19(4): 609-23.
• Vandenberghe, F. (2005), ‘The Archers: a tale of folk (final episode?)’, Euro- pean Journal of Social Theory, 8(2): 227-37.
• Varela, C. (2007), ‘Elder-Vass’s move and Giddens’s call’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 37(2): 201-10.
• Wright, C. (1995), ‘Gender awareness in migration theory: synthesizing ac- tor and structure in Southern Africa’, Development and Change, 26(4): 771-91.
• Yeung, H.W. (1997), ‘Critical realism and realist research in human geograp- hy: a method or a philosophy in search of a method?’, Progress in Human Geography, 21(1): 51-74.