Uluslararası İlişkiler Disiplininin Postkolonyal Yapı-Sökümü

Abstract

Postkolonyal Teori, en genel ifadeyle, kolonici ve kolonize toplumlar arasındaki kolonyal ilişkilerin, kolonyalizmin biçimsel olarak sona ermesiyle sonlanmadığını ve ekonomik, siyasi, kültürel, entelektüel ve söylemsel boyutta devam ettiğini vurgulamaktadır. Bu tahakküm araçlarını araştırmayı ve Batı-merkezciliği sorunsallaştırmayı içermektedir. Bu bağlamda, Uluslararası İlişkiler disiplininin Batı-merkezci doğasını aşabilmek için yararlı bir analitik çerçeve sunmaktadır. Çalışmada, postkolonyal bakış açısıyla, Uluslararası İlişkiler disiplinin Batı-merkezciliği sorunsallaştırılmış ve bu hiyerarşinin tahakküm araçları araştırılmıştır. Böylece disiplinin uluslararasılaşması için aşılması gereken kısıtlılıkların tespit edilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Sonuçta ana akım kuramların Batı-merkezci yaklaşımları, disiplinde Öteki’nin özneliği, tarih yazımı ve disiplinin akademisindeki hiyerarşi sorunlu alanlar olarak tespit edilmiştir. Postkolonyal yaklaşım bu sorunları ortaya çıkartarak, disiplinde Öteki’ni temsil etmeye, Öteki’nin tarihine, özneliğine ve diğer Ötekili unsurlara yer açmaya, kısaca Öteki’nin maduniyetine son vermeye yardımcı olmaktadır.

Keywords

• Postkolonyal Teori
• Kolonyalizm
• Batı-merkezcilik
• Öteki
• Madun

Postcolonial Deconstruction of International Relations Discipline

Abstract

In the most general terms, Postcolonial Theory emphasizes that colonial relations between colonial and colonized societies do not end with the formal end of colonialism and continue in economic, political, cultural, intellectual and discursive dimensions. It includes exploring the means of this domination and problematizing Western-centrism. In this context, it offers a useful analytical framework to overcome the West-centric nature of the International Relations discipline. In this study, from a postcolonial perspective, the West-centrism of the International Relations discipline is problematized and the tools of domination of this hierarchy are investigated. Thus, it is aimed to identify the limitations that need to be overcome for the internationalization of the discipline. As a result, the Western-centred approaches of mainstream theories, the subjectivity of the Other in the discipline, historiography, and the hierarchy in the discipline's academy have been identified as problematic areas. By revealing these problems, the postcolonial approach helps to represent the Other in the discipline, to make room for the history, subjectivity, and other factors of the Other, in short, to put an end to the Other’s subordination.

Keywords

• Postcolonial Theory
• Colonialism
• West-centrism
• the Other
• Subaltern

References

1. Acharya, A., Buzan, B. (2010). Why is there no non-western international relations theory? an introduction. In A. Acharya, B. Buzan (Ed.), Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and beyond Asia (1-25). New York: Routledge.
2. Ashcroft, B., Griffths, G., Tiffin, H. (2002). The empire writes back: Theory and practice in postcolonial literatures. New York: Routledge.
3. Ashcroft, B., Griffths, G., Tiffin, H. (2007). Post-colonial studies: The key concepts. London; New York: Routledge.
4. Aydınlı, E., Mathews, J. (2008). Periphery theorising for a truly internationalised discipline: spinning IR theory our of Anatolia. Review of International Studies, 34(4), 693-712.
5. Aydınlı, E., Mathews, J. (2000), Are the core and periphery irreconcilable? The curious world of publishing in contemporary International Relations. The International Studies Profession, 1(3), 289-303.
6. Ayoob, M. (2002). Inequality and theorizing in international relations: The case for subaltern Realism. International Studies Review. 4(3), 27-48.
7. Barkawi, T., Laffey, M. (2006). The postcolonial moment in security studies. Review of International Studies, 32(2), 329-352.
8. Beleiker, R. (2006). Searching for difference in a homogeneous discipline. International Studies Review, 8(1), 128-130.

9. Bhabha, H. (1984). Of mimicry and man: the ambivalence of colonial discourse. In F. Cooper, A. L. Stoler (Ed.), Colonial cultures in a bourgeois world (152-162). Berkeley; Los Angeles: London: University of California.
10. Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. New York: Routledge.
11. Bilgin, P. (2008). Thinking past “Western” IR?. Third World Quarterly, 29(1), 5-23.
12. Blaney, D. L., Inayatullah, N. (2008). International relations from below. In C. Reus-Smith, D. Snidal (Ed.), The oxford handbook of international relations (663-674). New York: Oxford University.
13. Cesaire, A. (1972). Discourse on colonialism. (Trans. J. Pinkham). New York: Monthly Review.
14. Chakrabarty, D. (1992). Postcoloniality and the artifice of history: Who speak for “Indian” past. Representations, 37, 1-26.
15. Chowdhry, G., Nair, S. (2002). Introduction: Power in postcolonial world: Race, gender, and class in international relations. In G. Chowdhry, S. Nair (Ed.), Power, postcolonialism and international relations: readin race, gender, and class (1-32). London: Routledge.
16. Dirlik, A. (1994). The postcolonial aura: Third World criticism in the age of global capitalism. Critical Inquiry. 20(2), 328-356.
17. Doty, R. L. (1996). Imperial encounters: The politics of representation in north-south relations. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
18. Eyrice-Tepeciklioğlu, E. (2013). Postkolonyal kuram: Uluslararası İlişkiler disiplinini dekolonize etmek. Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4(2), 80-97.
19. Fanon, F. (1986). Black skin white masks. (Trans. C. L. Markmann). London: Pluto.
20. Fanon, F. (2004). The wretched of the earth. (Trans. R. Philcox). New York: Grove.
21. Goody, J. (2012). Tarih Hırsızlığı. (Çev. G. Güven). İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür.
22. Grovogui, S. N. (2013). Postcolonialism. In T. Dunne, M. Kurki, S. Smith (Eds.), International Relations theory: Discipline and diversity (247-265). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23. Grovogui, S. N. (2001). Sovereignty in Africa: Quasi-statehood and other myths in International Relations. In K. Dunn, T. M. Shaw (Eds.), Africa’s challenge to International Relations theory (29-45). Hamsphire: Palgrave.
24. Helliwell, C., Hindess, B. (2013). Time and the Others. In S. Seth (Ed.), Postcolonial Theory and International Relations (70-84). London: Routledge.
25. Hobson, J. M. (2007). Is a critical theory always for the white west and for western imperialism? Beyond Westphillian towards a post-racist IR. Review of International Studies. 33(1), 91-116.
26. Hobson, J. M. (2015). Batı medeniyetinin doğulu kökenleri. (Çev. E. Ermert). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi.
27. Hoffmann, S. H. (2013). Bir Amerikan sosyal bilimi: Uluslararası İlişkiler. E. Diri (Ed.), Uluslararası ilişkilerde anahtar metinler içinde (143-164). İstanbul: Röle Akademik.
28. Horvath, R. J. (1972). A definition of colonialism. Current Anthropology, 13(1), 45-57.
29. Inayatullah, N., Blaney, D. L. (2004). International relations and the problem of difference. London: Routledge.
30. İpek, V., Oyman, Ç. (2014). Postkolonyal Teori ve Uluslararası İlişkiler. R. Gözen (Ed.), Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri içinde (405-442), İstanbul: İletişim.
31. Jones, B. G. (2006). Introduction: International relations, eurocentrism and imperialism. In B. Jones (Ed.), Decolonizing international relations (1-19). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
32. Krause, K. (1998). Theorizing security, state formation and the ‘Third World’ in post-cold war world. Review of International Studies, 24(1), 125-136.
33. Krishna, S. (2009). Globalization and postcolonialism: Hegemony and resistance in the twenty first century. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
34. Krishna, S. (1993). The importance of being ironic: A postcolonial view on critical international relations theory. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 18(3), 385-417.
35. Loomba, A. (2000). Kolonyalizm postkolonyalizm. (Çev. M. Küçük). İstanbul: Ayrıntı.
36. Memmi, A. (2003). The colonizer and the colonized. (Trans. H. Greenfeld). London: Earthscan.
37. Mgonja, B., Makombe, I. (2009). Debating international relations and its relevance to the third world. African Journal of Political Science and International Relations. 3(1), 027-037.
38. Miles, R. (1989). Racism. London: Routledge.
39. Nair, S. (2017, 18 December). Introducing postcolonialism in international relations theory. E-International Relations. Retrieved from https://www.e-ir.info/2017/12/08/postcolonialism-in-international-relations-theory/.
40. Nkrumah, K. (1965). Neo-colonialism: The last stage of imperialism. London: Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd.
41. Rumelili, B. (2014). Batı merkezcilik ve postkolonyalizm. E. Balta (Ed.), Küresel siyasete giriş içinde (203-220). İstanbul: İletişim.
42. Rumelili, B. (2009). Uluslararası ilişkilerde yerel-görüşlülük ve Doğu’nun özneselliği. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 6(3), 45-71.
43. Said, E. (1998). Oryantalizm. (Çev. N. Uzel). İstanbul: İrfan.
44. Sartre, J. P. (2001). Colonialism and neocolonialism. (Trans. A. Haddour et al.). London: Routledge.
45. Saurin, J. (2006). International relations as the imperial illusion or the need to decolonize IR. In B. G. Jones (Ed.), Decolonizing international relations. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
46. Seth, S. (2009). Historical sociology and postcolonial theory: Two strategies for challenging eurocentrism. International Political Sociology, 3(3), 334-338.
47. Seth, S. (2011). Postcolonial theory and the critique of international relations. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 40(1), 167-183.
48. Smith, B. C. (2003). Understanding third world politics: Theories of political change and development. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
49. Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak?. In C. Nelson, L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and interpretation culture. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
50. Tickner, A. (2003). Seeing IR differently: Notes from the third world. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 32(2), 295-324.
51. Wӕver, O. (1998). The sociology of a not so international discipline: American and European developments in international relations. International Organization, 52(4), 687-727.
52. Young, R. (2003). Postcolonialism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.