BibTex RIS Cite

-

Year 2015, Volume: 39 Issue: 2, 11 - 40, 20.06.2015

Hayriye Özen

Abstract

Recently some societies witnessed the emergence of anti-systemic popular mobilizations that adopted the occupation of city squares as the main form of collective action. Do these city square movements, which include the Indignation movement in Spain, the Aganaktismenoi movement in Greece, the popular mobilizations called Arab Spring, the Occupation movement in Europe and the US, and the Gezi movement in Turkey, signify a qualitative transformation in social movements? What is the relation of continuity and change between these square movements and the ‘old’ and ‘new’ social movements? To what extent can mainstream social movement theories help us in understanding these movements? The present study addresses these questions. Focusing on the relation of continuity and change between city square movements and ‘old’ and ‘new’ movements in the first part of the study, it demonstrates that, despite certain continuities, city square movements considerably differ from both types of movements. Although they have some similarities with the old movements in the sense of expressing a resistance to the hegemonic economic structures, they, unlike the old movements, do not conceive working class as the single revolutionary agent of radical change. In opposing to broad hegemonic structures, they, like new social movements, voice different social demands of various social groups. Yet, unlike new social movements, city square movements are not particular movements emerged around particular social demands, resisting in this way to be easily absorbed by the existing systems. The most important characteristic of city square movements is that they, in contrast to both old and new social movements, express various social demands and, in this way, mobilize heterogeneous masses. The second part of the study addresses the question of how to analyze city square movements. After demonstrating how mainstream social movement theories fail to provide an adequate conceptual framework within which to understand the dynamics of these movements, it is argued that Ernesto Laclau’s conceptualization of populism has much to offer to analysis of city square movements. Unlike mainstream social movement theories, Laclau’s theory of populism casts analytical light on the issue of mobilization of divergent groups with various particular demands against the status quo

Keywords

Social movements social movement theories anti-systemic movements populism city square movements

References

  • Abdulla R (2014). The Revolutıon will be Tweeted.
  • http://www.aucegypt.edu/gapp/cairoreview/pages/articledetails.aspx?aid=89. Sonerişim tarihi, 28. 03. 2015.
  • Abul-magd Z (2012). Occupying Tahrir Square: The Myths and Realities of the Egyptian Revolution. The South Atlantic Quarterly, 111(39, 565- 572.
  • Badran S Z (2014). The Contentious Roots of the Egyptian Revolution. Globalizations, 11(2), 273- 287.
  • Barker C vd. (2013). Marxism and Social Movements: An Introduction. İçinde C Barker vd. (der) Marxism and Social Movements, Leiden: Brill, 1-37.
  • Bell L (2001). Interpreting Collective Action: Methodology and Ideology in the Analysis of Social Movements in France, Modern and Contemporary France, 9(2), 183-196.
  • Benford D R ve Snow D A (2000). Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment, Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-39.
  • Benski T vd. (2013). From the Streets and Squares to Social Movement Studies: What have we Learned? Current Sociology 61 (4), 541- 561.
  • Boltanski L ve Chiapello E (2005). The New Spirit of Capitalism, London-New York, Verso.
  • Calhoun C (2013). Occupy Wall Street in Perspective. The British Journal of Sociology,64(1), 26-38.
  • Castaneda E (2012). The Indignados of Spain: A Precedent to Occupy Wall Street. Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest, 11(3-4), 309-319.
  • Castells M (2012). Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age. Cambridge: Polity.
  • De Smet B (2014). Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Egypt. Science & Society, 78 (1), 11–40.
  • Della Porta D ve Diani M (1999). Social Movements: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Eder K (1993). The New Politics of Class: Social Movements and Cultural Dynamics in Advanced Societies. Newbury Park/London: Sage.
  • Flesher Fominaya C (2015). Debunking Spontaneity: Spain’s 15-M/Indignados as Autonomous Movement. Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest, 14 (2), 142-163.
  • Gautney H (2012). Occupy x: Repossession by Occupation. The South Atlantic Quarterly,111, 3.
  • Gitlin T (2013). Occupy’s Predicament: the moment and the prospects for the movement. The British Journal of Sociology,64 (1), 3- 25.
  • Gregory D (2013). Tahrir: Politics, Publics and Performances of Space. Middle East Critique, 22(3), 235- 246.
  • Habermas J (1981) The Theory of Communicative Action Volume 2. Beacon, Boston Press.
  • Hafez B N (2013). New Social Movements and the Egyptian Spring: A Comparative Analysis between the April 6 Movement and the Revolutionary Socialists Perspectives on Global. Development and Technology, 72, 98-113.
  • Halvorsen S (2012). Beyond the Network? Occupy London and the Global Movement.
  • Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest, 11 (3-4): 427-
  • -
  • Jenkins J C (1983). Resource Mobilization Theory and the Study of Social Movements.
  • Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 527-53.
  • Jenkins J C ve Perrow C (1977). Insurgency of the Powerless: The Farm Worker Movements 1946- 1972. American Sociological Review, 42, 249-68.
  • Kandil H (2012). Why did the Egyptian Middle Class March to Tahrir Square?, Mediterranean Politics, 17(2), 197-215.
  • Kandiyoti D (2011). Promise and Peril: Women and Arab Spring https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/deniz-kandiyoti/promise-and-peril-women-and-‘arabspring’. Son erişim tarihi, 03/02/2015.
  • Katsiaficas G (2006). The Subversion of Politics: European Autonomous Social Movements and the Decolonization of Everyday Life, AK Press.
  • Kerton S (2012). Tahrir, Here? The Influence of the Arab Uprisisngs on the Emergence of Occupy. Social Movement Studies, 11(3- 4), 302- 308.
  • Laclau E (1996). Emancipation(s). London: Verso.
  • Laclau E (2005). On Populist Reason. London: Verso.
  • Laclau E (2011). Popülizm: Bir Ad Ne İçerir? Çev. H Özen. Atılım Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1 (1), 135- 146.
  • Laclau E ve Mouffe C (1990). Post-Marxism without Apologies. İçinde E Laclau, New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time. London: Verso.
  • Langman L (2013). Occupy: A new new social movement. Current Sociology, 61(4), 510-524.
  • Mayer M (1991). Social Movement Research in the United States: A European
  • Perspective. International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society,4(1).
  • McAdam D (1982). Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency 1930-1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • McAdam D vd. (2001). Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • McCarthy J ve Zald M (1977). Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 1212-1241.
  • Mellor N (2014). Who Represents the Revolutionaries? Examples from the Egyptian Revolution 2011. Mediterranean Politics, 19(1), 82- 98.
  • Melucci A (1985). The Symbolic Challenge of Contemporary Movements. Social Research, 52(4), 789-816.
  • Melucci A (1989). Nomads of the Present: Social Movements and Individual Needs in Contemporary Society. İçinde J Keane ve P Mier, (der), Hutchinson Radius, London.
  • Melucci A (1994). A Strange Kind of Newness: What’s ‘New’ in new Social Movements?. İçinde E Larana vd. (der) New Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.
  • Melucci A (1995). The New Social Movements Revisited. İçinde L Maheu (der) Social Movements and Social Classes: The Future of Collective Action. Sage, Londra.
  • Melucci A (1996). Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the Information Age, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Moghadam V (2013). What is democracy? Promises and perils of the Arab Spring. Current Sociology, 61 (4), 393-408.
  • Murphy E C (2011). The Tunisian Uprising and the Precarious Path to Democracy, Mediterranean Politics, 16 (2), 299-305.
  • Offe C (1985). New Social Movements: Challenging the Boundaries of Institutional Politics. Social Research, 52(4), 817-868.
  • Özen H (2013). Toplumsal Hareketlerin ‘Siyasal’ Rolü: Rasyonalist Yaklaşımların Eleştirel Bir Değerlendirmesi, S Dergisi, 68(3), 37-61.
  • Özen H ve Avcı Ö (2013). Her Yer Taksim Her Yer Direniş : Kentsel Bir Hareketin Ulusal Yayılımı. Atılım Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3(1-2), 31- 45.
  • Perugorria I ve Tejerina B (2013). Politics of the encounter: Cognition, emotions, and networks in the Spanish 15M. Current Sociology, 61(4), 424- 442.
  • Piven F F ve Cloward R (1995). Collective Protest: A Critique of Resource Mobilization Theory. İçinde S M Lyman (der). Social Movements: Critiques, Concepts, Case-Studies. London: Macmillan.
  • Rucht D ve Neidhardt F (2002). Towards a ‘Movement Society’? On the Possibilities of Institutionalizing Social Movements. Social Movement Studies, 1(1), 7- 30.
  • Shahin E E (2012). The Egyptian Revolution: The Power of Mass Mobilization and the Spirit of Tahrir Square. Journal of the Middle East and Africa, 3, 46- 69.
  • Sika N (2012). Youth Political Engagement in Egypt: From Abstention to Uprisings. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 39(2), 181- 199.
  • Sotirakopoulos N ve Sotiropoulos G (2013). Direct Democracy Now!: The Greek Indignados and the Present Cycle of Struggles. Current Sociology, 6(4), 443- 456.
  • Standing G (2014). Prekarya: Yeni Tehlikeli Sınıf. İletişim: İstanbul.
  • Stavrakakis Y (2013). The European Populist Challenge. http://www.populismus.gr/clipping-en/research-papers-and-analysis/the-european-populist-challenge-yannisstavrakakis. Son erişim tarihi, 16/01/2015.
  • Swyngedouw E. (2007). Impossible/Undesirable Sustainability and the Post-Political Condition. İçinde J R Krueger ve D Gibbs (der), The Sustainable Development Paradox. New York: Guilford.
  • Taibo C (2013). The Spanish indignados: A Movement with two Souls. European Urban and Regional Studies, 20 (1), 155-158.
  • Tarrow S (1998). Power in Movement: Social Movement and Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Tejerina B vd. (2013). From indignation to occupation: A new wave of global mobilization Current Sociology, 61(4), 377- 392.
  • Teti A ve Gervasio G (2011). The Unbearable Lightness of Authoritarianism: Lessons from the Arab Uprisings. Mediterranean Politics, 16(2), 321-327.
  • Tilly C (1978). From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Tilly C (1999). From Interactions to Outcomes in Social Movements. İçinde M Giugni, vd. (der) How Social Movements Matter. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Touraine A (1985). An Introduction to the Study of Social Movements. Social Research, 52(4), 749-88.
  • Touraine A (1988). Return of the Actor: Social Theory in Postindustrial Society. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
  • Touraine A (1991) “Commentary on Dieter Rucht’s Critique” İçinde D Rucht (der) Research on Social Movements: The State of Art in Western Europe and the USA. Westview Press, Boulder.
  • Touraine A (1992). Beyond Social Movements? Theory, Culture, & Society,9(1), 125- 145.
  • Touraine A (2002). The Importance of Social Movements. Social Movement Studies, 1(1), 90-95.
  • Vahabzadeh P (2003). Articulated Experiences: Toward A Radical Phenomenology of Contemporary Social Movements. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Wallerstein I (2002). New Revolts against the System. New Left Review, 18, 29- 39.

Meydan Hareketleri ve ‘Eski’ ve ‘Yeni’ Toplumsal Hareketler

Year 2015, Volume: 39 Issue: 2, 11 - 40, 20.06.2015

Hayriye Özen

Abstract

Farklı coğrafyalarda bulunan çeşitli toplumlar son bir kaç yılda belli başlı meydanların işgalini temel kolektif eylem olarak benimseyen sistem karşıtı popüler hareketlerin doğuşuna tanıklık etti. İspanya İndignados hareketi, Yunanistan Aganaktismenoi hareketi, Arap Baharı olarak adlandırılan popüler hareketler, Avrupa ve Amerika Birleşik Devletlerindeki İşgal hareketleri ve Türkiye’nin deneyimlediği Gezi hareketi gibi hareketleri kapsayan bu ‘meydan hareketleri’, kolektif eylemler ve toplumsal hareketlerde niteliksel bir değişim ve dönüşümün ifadesi olarak görülebilirler mi? Bu hareketler, toplumsal hareketler literatüründe genel olarak ‘eski’ ve ‘yeni’ toplumsal hareketler olarak kategorize edilen ve birbirinden oldukça farklı özellikler taşıyan hareketler ile ne tür devamlılıklara ve farklılıklara sahiptir? Toplumsal hareketlerin analizi için önerilen ana akım kuramlar meydan hareketlerini anlamamızda yeterli bir kılavuz olabilirler mi? Mevcut çalışma bu soruları ele alıyor. Meydan hareketlerinin niteliğini ortaya koymak üzere bu hareketler ile ‘eski’ ve ‘yeni’ toplumsal hareketler arasındaki süreklilik/kopuş ilişkilerine odaklanan çalışmanın ilk bölümünde, meydan hareketlerinin her iki tür hareketle önemli paralellikler taşımakla birlikte, aynı zamanda her iki hareket türünden de önemli ölçüde farklılaştığı gösteriliyor. Bu hareketler, ‘eski’ toplumsal hareketlere benzer bir şekilde hâkim siyasi ve ekonomik yapılara yönelik kararlı bir direnişi ifade etmekle birlikte, eski toplumsal hareketlerden farklı olarak ne belli bir sınıfsal aidiyete sahip özgürleştirici bir toplumsal ajan olma iddiasını taşımakta, ne de bununla da ilintili olarak taleplerini ve karşı çıktıkları mevcut düzenin yerine getirmek istedikleri düzeni eski hareketler gibi net bir şekilde formüle etmekteler. Diğer taraftan, geniş hegemonik yapılara itirazla sınırlı kalmayıp, çok çeşitli toplumsal huzursuzluk ve talepleri dile getirmeleri ve sınıfsal aidiyetin dışında farklı aidiyetlere sahip toplumsal grupları içermeleri bakımından yeni toplumsal hareketlere benzemekteler. Ancak, yeni toplumsal hareketlerin aksine yalnızca tikel taleplerin etrafında örgütlenen tikel mücadelelere dönüşmemekte ve böylece kurumsal sistemin kendilerini kolaylıkla absorbe etmesine izin vermemekteler. Meydan hareketlerini karakterize eden en önemli özelliklerden birisi, hem eski hem de yeni toplumsal hareketlerin tersine, çok çeşitli toplumsal talepleri dile getirme ve böylelikle oldukça heterojen kitleleri harekete geçirme kabiliyetine sahip olmalarıdır. Meydan hareketlerinin nasıl analiz edilebileceği sorusuna odaklanan çalışmanın ikinci bölümünde, toplumsal hareket literatürüne hâkim toplumsal hareket kuramlarının meydan hareketleri gibi mevcut hegemonik yapılara karşı çıkan ve birbirinden farklı pek çok toplumsal grubu içeren hareketlerin dinamiklerini anlamamamızı sağlayacak kavramsal araçlara sahip olmadığı tartışılıyor. Ardından, Ernesto Laclau tarafından son yıllarda geliştirilen ‘popülizm’ kavramsallaştırmasının, meydan hareketlerinin analizine, bu hareketlerin kendine özgü dinamiklerini anlamamız açısından, önemli katkılarda bulunacağı gösteriliyor.

Keywords

Toplumsal hareketler toplumsal hareket kuramları sistem karşıtı hareketler popülizm meydan hareketleri.

References

  • Abdulla R (2014). The Revolutıon will be Tweeted.
  • http://www.aucegypt.edu/gapp/cairoreview/pages/articledetails.aspx?aid=89. Sonerişim tarihi, 28. 03. 2015.
  • Abul-magd Z (2012). Occupying Tahrir Square: The Myths and Realities of the Egyptian Revolution. The South Atlantic Quarterly, 111(39, 565- 572.
  • Badran S Z (2014). The Contentious Roots of the Egyptian Revolution. Globalizations, 11(2), 273- 287.
  • Barker C vd. (2013). Marxism and Social Movements: An Introduction. İçinde C Barker vd. (der) Marxism and Social Movements, Leiden: Brill, 1-37.
  • Bell L (2001). Interpreting Collective Action: Methodology and Ideology in the Analysis of Social Movements in France, Modern and Contemporary France, 9(2), 183-196.
  • Benford D R ve Snow D A (2000). Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment, Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-39.
  • Benski T vd. (2013). From the Streets and Squares to Social Movement Studies: What have we Learned? Current Sociology 61 (4), 541- 561.
  • Boltanski L ve Chiapello E (2005). The New Spirit of Capitalism, London-New York, Verso.
  • Calhoun C (2013). Occupy Wall Street in Perspective. The British Journal of Sociology,64(1), 26-38.
  • Castaneda E (2012). The Indignados of Spain: A Precedent to Occupy Wall Street. Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest, 11(3-4), 309-319.
  • Castells M (2012). Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age. Cambridge: Polity.
  • De Smet B (2014). Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Egypt. Science & Society, 78 (1), 11–40.
  • Della Porta D ve Diani M (1999). Social Movements: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Eder K (1993). The New Politics of Class: Social Movements and Cultural Dynamics in Advanced Societies. Newbury Park/London: Sage.
  • Flesher Fominaya C (2015). Debunking Spontaneity: Spain’s 15-M/Indignados as Autonomous Movement. Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest, 14 (2), 142-163.
  • Gautney H (2012). Occupy x: Repossession by Occupation. The South Atlantic Quarterly,111, 3.
  • Gitlin T (2013). Occupy’s Predicament: the moment and the prospects for the movement. The British Journal of Sociology,64 (1), 3- 25.
  • Gregory D (2013). Tahrir: Politics, Publics and Performances of Space. Middle East Critique, 22(3), 235- 246.
  • Habermas J (1981) The Theory of Communicative Action Volume 2. Beacon, Boston Press.
  • Hafez B N (2013). New Social Movements and the Egyptian Spring: A Comparative Analysis between the April 6 Movement and the Revolutionary Socialists Perspectives on Global. Development and Technology, 72, 98-113.
  • Halvorsen S (2012). Beyond the Network? Occupy London and the Global Movement.
  • Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest, 11 (3-4): 427-
  • -
  • Jenkins J C (1983). Resource Mobilization Theory and the Study of Social Movements.
  • Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 527-53.
  • Jenkins J C ve Perrow C (1977). Insurgency of the Powerless: The Farm Worker Movements 1946- 1972. American Sociological Review, 42, 249-68.
  • Kandil H (2012). Why did the Egyptian Middle Class March to Tahrir Square?, Mediterranean Politics, 17(2), 197-215.
  • Kandiyoti D (2011). Promise and Peril: Women and Arab Spring https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/deniz-kandiyoti/promise-and-peril-women-and-‘arabspring’. Son erişim tarihi, 03/02/2015.
  • Katsiaficas G (2006). The Subversion of Politics: European Autonomous Social Movements and the Decolonization of Everyday Life, AK Press.
  • Kerton S (2012). Tahrir, Here? The Influence of the Arab Uprisisngs on the Emergence of Occupy. Social Movement Studies, 11(3- 4), 302- 308.
  • Laclau E (1996). Emancipation(s). London: Verso.
  • Laclau E (2005). On Populist Reason. London: Verso.
  • Laclau E (2011). Popülizm: Bir Ad Ne İçerir? Çev. H Özen. Atılım Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1 (1), 135- 146.
  • Laclau E ve Mouffe C (1990). Post-Marxism without Apologies. İçinde E Laclau, New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time. London: Verso.
  • Langman L (2013). Occupy: A new new social movement. Current Sociology, 61(4), 510-524.
  • Mayer M (1991). Social Movement Research in the United States: A European
  • Perspective. International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society,4(1).
  • McAdam D (1982). Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency 1930-1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • McAdam D vd. (2001). Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • McCarthy J ve Zald M (1977). Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 1212-1241.
  • Mellor N (2014). Who Represents the Revolutionaries? Examples from the Egyptian Revolution 2011. Mediterranean Politics, 19(1), 82- 98.
  • Melucci A (1985). The Symbolic Challenge of Contemporary Movements. Social Research, 52(4), 789-816.
  • Melucci A (1989). Nomads of the Present: Social Movements and Individual Needs in Contemporary Society. İçinde J Keane ve P Mier, (der), Hutchinson Radius, London.
  • Melucci A (1994). A Strange Kind of Newness: What’s ‘New’ in new Social Movements?. İçinde E Larana vd. (der) New Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.
  • Melucci A (1995). The New Social Movements Revisited. İçinde L Maheu (der) Social Movements and Social Classes: The Future of Collective Action. Sage, Londra.
  • Melucci A (1996). Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the Information Age, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Moghadam V (2013). What is democracy? Promises and perils of the Arab Spring. Current Sociology, 61 (4), 393-408.
  • Murphy E C (2011). The Tunisian Uprising and the Precarious Path to Democracy, Mediterranean Politics, 16 (2), 299-305.
  • Offe C (1985). New Social Movements: Challenging the Boundaries of Institutional Politics. Social Research, 52(4), 817-868.
  • Özen H (2013). Toplumsal Hareketlerin ‘Siyasal’ Rolü: Rasyonalist Yaklaşımların Eleştirel Bir Değerlendirmesi, S Dergisi, 68(3), 37-61.
  • Özen H ve Avcı Ö (2013). Her Yer Taksim Her Yer Direniş : Kentsel Bir Hareketin Ulusal Yayılımı. Atılım Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3(1-2), 31- 45.
  • Perugorria I ve Tejerina B (2013). Politics of the encounter: Cognition, emotions, and networks in the Spanish 15M. Current Sociology, 61(4), 424- 442.
  • Piven F F ve Cloward R (1995). Collective Protest: A Critique of Resource Mobilization Theory. İçinde S M Lyman (der). Social Movements: Critiques, Concepts, Case-Studies. London: Macmillan.
  • Rucht D ve Neidhardt F (2002). Towards a ‘Movement Society’? On the Possibilities of Institutionalizing Social Movements. Social Movement Studies, 1(1), 7- 30.
  • Shahin E E (2012). The Egyptian Revolution: The Power of Mass Mobilization and the Spirit of Tahrir Square. Journal of the Middle East and Africa, 3, 46- 69.
  • Sika N (2012). Youth Political Engagement in Egypt: From Abstention to Uprisings. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 39(2), 181- 199.
  • Sotirakopoulos N ve Sotiropoulos G (2013). Direct Democracy Now!: The Greek Indignados and the Present Cycle of Struggles. Current Sociology, 6(4), 443- 456.
  • Standing G (2014). Prekarya: Yeni Tehlikeli Sınıf. İletişim: İstanbul.
  • Stavrakakis Y (2013). The European Populist Challenge. http://www.populismus.gr/clipping-en/research-papers-and-analysis/the-european-populist-challenge-yannisstavrakakis. Son erişim tarihi, 16/01/2015.
  • Swyngedouw E. (2007). Impossible/Undesirable Sustainability and the Post-Political Condition. İçinde J R Krueger ve D Gibbs (der), The Sustainable Development Paradox. New York: Guilford.
  • Taibo C (2013). The Spanish indignados: A Movement with two Souls. European Urban and Regional Studies, 20 (1), 155-158.
  • Tarrow S (1998). Power in Movement: Social Movement and Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Tejerina B vd. (2013). From indignation to occupation: A new wave of global mobilization Current Sociology, 61(4), 377- 392.
  • Teti A ve Gervasio G (2011). The Unbearable Lightness of Authoritarianism: Lessons from the Arab Uprisings. Mediterranean Politics, 16(2), 321-327.
  • Tilly C (1978). From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Tilly C (1999). From Interactions to Outcomes in Social Movements. İçinde M Giugni, vd. (der) How Social Movements Matter. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Touraine A (1985). An Introduction to the Study of Social Movements. Social Research, 52(4), 749-88.
  • Touraine A (1988). Return of the Actor: Social Theory in Postindustrial Society. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
  • Touraine A (1991) “Commentary on Dieter Rucht’s Critique” İçinde D Rucht (der) Research on Social Movements: The State of Art in Western Europe and the USA. Westview Press, Boulder.
  • Touraine A (1992). Beyond Social Movements? Theory, Culture, & Society,9(1), 125- 145.
  • Touraine A (2002). The Importance of Social Movements. Social Movement Studies, 1(1), 90-95.
  • Vahabzadeh P (2003). Articulated Experiences: Toward A Radical Phenomenology of Contemporary Social Movements. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Wallerstein I (2002). New Revolts against the System. New Left Review, 18, 29- 39.
There are 74 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Makale /Articles
Authors

Hayriye Özen

Publication Date June 20, 2015
Published in Issue Year 2015 Volume: 39 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Özen, H. (2015). Meydan Hareketleri ve ‘Eski’ ve ‘Yeni’ Toplumsal Hareketler. Mülkiye Dergisi, 39(2), 11-40.
AMA Özen H. Meydan Hareketleri ve ‘Eski’ ve ‘Yeni’ Toplumsal Hareketler. Mülkiye Dergisi. June 2015;39(2):11-40.
Chicago Özen, Hayriye. “Meydan Hareketleri Ve ‘Eski’ Ve ‘Yeni’ Toplumsal Hareketler”. Mülkiye Dergisi 39, no. 2 (June 2015): 11-40.
EndNote Özen H (June 1, 2015) Meydan Hareketleri ve ‘Eski’ ve ‘Yeni’ Toplumsal Hareketler. Mülkiye Dergisi 39 2 11–40.
IEEE H. Özen, “Meydan Hareketleri ve ‘Eski’ ve ‘Yeni’ Toplumsal Hareketler”, Mülkiye Dergisi, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 11–40, 2015.
ISNAD Özen, Hayriye. “Meydan Hareketleri Ve ‘Eski’ Ve ‘Yeni’ Toplumsal Hareketler”. Mülkiye Dergisi 39/2 (June 2015), 11-40.
JAMA Özen H. Meydan Hareketleri ve ‘Eski’ ve ‘Yeni’ Toplumsal Hareketler. Mülkiye Dergisi. 2015;39:11–40.
MLA Özen, Hayriye. “Meydan Hareketleri Ve ‘Eski’ Ve ‘Yeni’ Toplumsal Hareketler”. Mülkiye Dergisi, vol. 39, no. 2, 2015, pp. 11-40.
Vancouver Özen H. Meydan Hareketleri ve ‘Eski’ ve ‘Yeni’ Toplumsal Hareketler. Mülkiye Dergisi. 2015;39(2):11-40.
 Download Cover Image
Mülkiye Dergisi: Mülkiyeliler Birliği Konur Sokak No. 1, Kızılay - ANKARA, TÜRKİYE. Tel: +90 312 4185572; Faks: +90 312 4191373; mulkiyedergisi@mulkiye.org.tr / Mülkiye Dergisi, Mülkiyeliler Birliği Genel Merkezi Yayın Organı'dır.