Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Uluslararası İlişkiler Disiplininde İlişkisel Ontoloji ve İlişkisellik

Year 2023, , 28 - 47, 31.12.2023
https://doi.org/10.14782/marmarasbd.1370131

Abstract

Dünya siyasetini anlamak ve açıklamak amacıyla hangi aktörlerin arasındaki ne tür ilişkilerin öncelikli olarak incelenmesi gerektiği konusu disiplinin kuruluşundan bu yana Uluslararası İlişkiler Kuramları literatüründe merkezi bir tartışma olagelmiştir. Bir ontolojik iddia olarak ilişkilerin aktörlerden veya birimlerden önce geldiği ve dünya siyasetinin malzemesi olarak incelediğimiz her şeyin aslında birer ilişkiler bütünü olduğu ilişkisel ontoloji veya ilişkisellik kavramı ise, sosyoloji ve felsefe gibi sosyal bilimlerin diğer alanlarında daha uzun süredir var olmasına ragmen, Uluslararası İlişkiler’de ancak 1990’ların sonlarından itibaren gündeme gelmeye başlamıştır. Bu çalışmada ilişkisellik kavramının Uluslararası İlişkiler disiplini açısından ne ifade ettiği ve disipline -eğer getirdiyse- nasıl bir yenilik getirdiğinin sorgulanması amaçlanmaktadır. Bu bağlamda, ilk bölümde sosyal bilimlerin diğer alanlarında ortaya çıkmış olan tözcü (substantive) ve ilişkisel (relational) yaklaşımlar arasındaki farklara değinilmiştir. Ikinci bölüm, ilişkiselliğin Uluslararası İlişkiler içindeki yolculuğuna odaklanarak, disipline tanıştırılmasından günümüze bu kavramın dünya siyaseti tartışmaları içinde hangi araştırmacılar tarafından ve nasıl çalışılageldiğini incelemektedir. Üçüncü bölüm, ilişkiselliğin farklı Uluslararası İlişkiler kuramları içinde bir yeri olup olmadığını sorgulamakta ve aynı zamanda bir kavram olarak ilişkisellikten bahsetmeyen kuramların içinde ilişkilere dair zaten var olan varsayımları ele almaktadır. Dördüncü bölüm, ilişkiselliğe dair var olan az sayıda eleştiriye de değinerek, bu kavrama birkaç yeni eleştiri getirmekte ve ilerlemek için muhtemel tartışma alanları veya çözüm önerileri sunmaktadır. Çalışma, makale boyunca yapılan tartışmaları ve çıkarımları ortaya koyan sonuç bölümü ile sonlandırılmaktadır.

References

  • Agathangelou, A. & L. H. M. Ling. (2004). The House of IR: The House of IR: From Family Power Politics to the Poisies of Worldism. International Studies Review, 6(4), 21-49.
  • Agathangelou, A. & L. H. M. Ling. (2009). Transforming World Politics: From Empire to Multiple Worlds. Londra: Routledge.
  • Barkawi, T. & Laffey, M. (2006). The postcolonial moment in security studies, Review of International Studies, 32(2), 329-352.
  • Bigo, D. (2013). International Political Sociology. P. D. Williams (Ed.), Security Studies: an introduction içinde (ss. 120-134). Londra: Routledge.
  • Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • Campbell, D. (1998). Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Campbell, D., & Dillon, M. (Eds.). (1993). The political subject of violence. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  • Chandler, D. (2015). Post-political ontologies and the problems of anthropocentrism: A reply to Tsouvalis. Global Discourse, 1(2), 40-42.
  • Dewey, J. & Bentley, A. (1949). Knowing and the Known. Boston: Beacon Press.
  • Elias, N. (1970). What is sociology?. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a Relational Sociology. American Journal of Sociology. 103(2), 281-317.
  • Hobson, J. M. & Sajed, A. (2017). Navigating Beyond the Eurofetishist Frontier of Critical IR Theory: Exploring the Complex Landscapes of Non-Western Agency. International Studies Review, 19(4), 547-572.
  • Hobson, J. M. (2007). Is critical theory always for the white West and for Western imperialism? Beyond Westphalian towards a post¬racist critical IR. Review of International Studies, 33(S1), 91¬116.
  • Hollis, M. & Smith, S. (1991). Explaining and Understanding International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Jackson, P. T. & Nixon, D. H. (1999). Relations Before States: Substance, Process and the Study of World Politics. European Journal of International Relations, 5(3), 291-332.
  • Kavalski, E. (2018). The Guanxi of Relational International Theory. Londra: Routledge.
  • Keohane, R. O. (1988). International Institutions: Two Approaches. International Studies Quarterly 32(4), 379–96.
  • Kurki, M. (2020). International Relations in a Relational Universe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Kurki, M. (2021). Relational Revolution and Relationality in IR: New conversations. Review of International Studies. 1-16. doi:10.1017/S0260210521000127.
  • Kurki, M, & Wight, C. (2013). International Relations and Social Science. Dunne, T., Kurki, M., and Smith, S. (Ed). International Relations Theories içinde (14-35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Ling, L. H. M. (2014). The Dao of World Politics: Towards Post-Westphalian, Worldist International Relations. Londra: Routledge.
  • Mohr, J. W. (2013) Bourdieu’s relational method in theory and practice: From fields and capitals to networks and institutions (and back again). F. Depelteau & C. Powell (Ed.), Applying Relational Sociology: Networks, Relations, and Society içinde (ss. 101-135). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Neufeld, M. A. (1995). The restructuring of International Relations theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Nordin, A. H. M. v.d. (2019). Towards global relational theorizing: A dialogue between Sinophone and Anglophone Scholarship on Relationalism. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 32(5), 570-581.
  • Onuf, N. (1998). Constructivism: A User’s Manual. V. Kubalkova, N. Onuf & P. Kowert (Ed.) International Relations in a Constructed World içinde (ss. 58-78). Londra: Routledge.
  • Qin, Y. (2018). A Relational Theory of World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Querejazu, A. (2016). Cosmopraxis: Relational methods for a pluriversal IR. Review of International Studies, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210521000450.
  • Pan, C. (2018). Toward a new relational ontology in global politics: China's rise as holographic transition. International relations of the Asia-Pacific, 18(3), 339-367.
  • Peoples, C. & Vaughan-Williams, N. (2010). Critical Security Studies: An Introduction. Londra: Routledge.
  • Rajaram, P. K. (2017). Sociology. X. Guillaume & P. Bilgin (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of International Political Sociology içinde (ss. 92-101). London: Routledge.
  • Rupert, M. (2006). Marxism and Critical Theory. T. Dunne, M. Kurki & S. Smith (Ed.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity içinde. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Shimizu, K. (2021). Buddhism and the Question of Relationality in International Relations. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 18(70), 29-44.
  • Smith, S. (1996). Positivism and Beyond. Smith S., Booth K. & Zalexski M. (Ed). International Theory: Positivism and Beyond içinde (ss. 11-44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Torfing, J. (1999). New theories of discourse: Laclau, Mouffe, and Zizek. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
  • Trownsell, T., Tickner, A. B., Querejazu Escobari, A., Reddekop, J., Shani, G., Shimizu, K., Behera, N., & Arian, A. (2021). Differing about Difference: Relational IR from around the World. International Studies Perspectives, 22(1) 25-64.
  • Tucker, K. (2018). Unraveling Coloniality in International Relations: Knowledge, Relationality, and Strategies for Engagement. International Political Sociology, 12(3), 215-232.
  • Uluocak, Ş. (2016). Tözcülük-İlişkisellik Dikotomisi Açısından İlişkisel Sosyolojik Modellerin Türkiye’de Sosyoloji Pratiği ve Düşünümselliği Açısından Olası Açılımları. Sosyoloji Konferansları, 53(2016-1), 101-153.
  • Walker, R. B. J. (1993). Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Weldes, J. (1996). Constructing National Interest. European Journal of International Relations, 2(3), 275-318.
  • Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wolfers, A. (1962). Discord and Collaboration. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

A Discussion on Relationality and Relational Ontology in the Discipline of IR

Year 2023, , 28 - 47, 31.12.2023
https://doi.org/10.14782/marmarasbd.1370131

Abstract

Since the emergence of International Relations as a distinct discipline, many theories of International Relations have made claims, assumptions, and debates about which actors and what types of relationships should be the focus in understanding world politics. The idea of relationality, which is an ontological claim that relations come before actors or units and that everything we analyze as the substance of global politics is actually constituted by a set of relations, has only been around in the field of International Relations unlike other fields of the social sciences like sociology and philosophy. Since the late 1990s, it has begun to gain attention. The purpose of this study is to explore the meaning of the notion of relationality for the field of International Relations and to determine whether or not it advances the field in any way. The article first analyzes the differences between substantive and relational approaches that have arisen in other domains of social sciences. The second part focuses on how respective researchers have examined relationality in discussions of global politics since it was first introduced to the field of International Relations. The third section questions whether relationality has a place within different IR theories and also addresses the pre-existing assumptions about relations within theories that do not mention relationality as a concept. The fourth chapter addresses the few existing criticisms of relationality, brings a few new criticisms to this concept, and offers possible areas of discussion or solutions for progress. The study concludes with a presentation of the discussions and findings made throughout the article.

References

  • Agathangelou, A. & L. H. M. Ling. (2004). The House of IR: The House of IR: From Family Power Politics to the Poisies of Worldism. International Studies Review, 6(4), 21-49.
  • Agathangelou, A. & L. H. M. Ling. (2009). Transforming World Politics: From Empire to Multiple Worlds. Londra: Routledge.
  • Barkawi, T. & Laffey, M. (2006). The postcolonial moment in security studies, Review of International Studies, 32(2), 329-352.
  • Bigo, D. (2013). International Political Sociology. P. D. Williams (Ed.), Security Studies: an introduction içinde (ss. 120-134). Londra: Routledge.
  • Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • Campbell, D. (1998). Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Campbell, D., & Dillon, M. (Eds.). (1993). The political subject of violence. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  • Chandler, D. (2015). Post-political ontologies and the problems of anthropocentrism: A reply to Tsouvalis. Global Discourse, 1(2), 40-42.
  • Dewey, J. & Bentley, A. (1949). Knowing and the Known. Boston: Beacon Press.
  • Elias, N. (1970). What is sociology?. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a Relational Sociology. American Journal of Sociology. 103(2), 281-317.
  • Hobson, J. M. & Sajed, A. (2017). Navigating Beyond the Eurofetishist Frontier of Critical IR Theory: Exploring the Complex Landscapes of Non-Western Agency. International Studies Review, 19(4), 547-572.
  • Hobson, J. M. (2007). Is critical theory always for the white West and for Western imperialism? Beyond Westphalian towards a post¬racist critical IR. Review of International Studies, 33(S1), 91¬116.
  • Hollis, M. & Smith, S. (1991). Explaining and Understanding International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Jackson, P. T. & Nixon, D. H. (1999). Relations Before States: Substance, Process and the Study of World Politics. European Journal of International Relations, 5(3), 291-332.
  • Kavalski, E. (2018). The Guanxi of Relational International Theory. Londra: Routledge.
  • Keohane, R. O. (1988). International Institutions: Two Approaches. International Studies Quarterly 32(4), 379–96.
  • Kurki, M. (2020). International Relations in a Relational Universe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Kurki, M. (2021). Relational Revolution and Relationality in IR: New conversations. Review of International Studies. 1-16. doi:10.1017/S0260210521000127.
  • Kurki, M, & Wight, C. (2013). International Relations and Social Science. Dunne, T., Kurki, M., and Smith, S. (Ed). International Relations Theories içinde (14-35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Ling, L. H. M. (2014). The Dao of World Politics: Towards Post-Westphalian, Worldist International Relations. Londra: Routledge.
  • Mohr, J. W. (2013) Bourdieu’s relational method in theory and practice: From fields and capitals to networks and institutions (and back again). F. Depelteau & C. Powell (Ed.), Applying Relational Sociology: Networks, Relations, and Society içinde (ss. 101-135). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Neufeld, M. A. (1995). The restructuring of International Relations theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Nordin, A. H. M. v.d. (2019). Towards global relational theorizing: A dialogue between Sinophone and Anglophone Scholarship on Relationalism. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 32(5), 570-581.
  • Onuf, N. (1998). Constructivism: A User’s Manual. V. Kubalkova, N. Onuf & P. Kowert (Ed.) International Relations in a Constructed World içinde (ss. 58-78). Londra: Routledge.
  • Qin, Y. (2018). A Relational Theory of World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Querejazu, A. (2016). Cosmopraxis: Relational methods for a pluriversal IR. Review of International Studies, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210521000450.
  • Pan, C. (2018). Toward a new relational ontology in global politics: China's rise as holographic transition. International relations of the Asia-Pacific, 18(3), 339-367.
  • Peoples, C. & Vaughan-Williams, N. (2010). Critical Security Studies: An Introduction. Londra: Routledge.
  • Rajaram, P. K. (2017). Sociology. X. Guillaume & P. Bilgin (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of International Political Sociology içinde (ss. 92-101). London: Routledge.
  • Rupert, M. (2006). Marxism and Critical Theory. T. Dunne, M. Kurki & S. Smith (Ed.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity içinde. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Shimizu, K. (2021). Buddhism and the Question of Relationality in International Relations. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 18(70), 29-44.
  • Smith, S. (1996). Positivism and Beyond. Smith S., Booth K. & Zalexski M. (Ed). International Theory: Positivism and Beyond içinde (ss. 11-44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Torfing, J. (1999). New theories of discourse: Laclau, Mouffe, and Zizek. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
  • Trownsell, T., Tickner, A. B., Querejazu Escobari, A., Reddekop, J., Shani, G., Shimizu, K., Behera, N., & Arian, A. (2021). Differing about Difference: Relational IR from around the World. International Studies Perspectives, 22(1) 25-64.
  • Tucker, K. (2018). Unraveling Coloniality in International Relations: Knowledge, Relationality, and Strategies for Engagement. International Political Sociology, 12(3), 215-232.
  • Uluocak, Ş. (2016). Tözcülük-İlişkisellik Dikotomisi Açısından İlişkisel Sosyolojik Modellerin Türkiye’de Sosyoloji Pratiği ve Düşünümselliği Açısından Olası Açılımları. Sosyoloji Konferansları, 53(2016-1), 101-153.
  • Walker, R. B. J. (1993). Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Weldes, J. (1996). Constructing National Interest. European Journal of International Relations, 2(3), 275-318.
  • Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wolfers, A. (1962). Discord and Collaboration. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
There are 42 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects International Relations (Other)
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Cagla Luleci Sula 0000-0002-0534-8271

Publication Date December 31, 2023
Published in Issue Year 2023

Cite

APA Luleci Sula, C. (2023). Uluslararası İlişkiler Disiplininde İlişkisel Ontoloji ve İlişkisellik. Marmara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(Özel Sayı), 28-47. https://doi.org/10.14782/marmarasbd.1370131