John Locke'un Mülkiyet Teorisinde Zamandaşlığın İnkârı

Year 2025, Volume: 17 Issue: 34, 66 - 78, 28.07.2025

Sibel Fügan Varol

https://doi.org/10.57205/yenifikirjournal.1702981

Abstract

Aydınlanmanın öncü düşünürlerinden biri kabul edilen John Locke, mülkiyet teorisini İngiltere'nin Kuzey Amerika topraklarını işgal ettiği on yedinci yüzyılda geliştirmiştir. Amerika'daki İngiliz kolonileri için uzun süre idari görev yapan ve köle ticaretinde yatırımları bulunan Locke'un mülkiyet teorisi, İngiltere'nin yerli halkların yaşamakta olduğu toprakları işgalini meşrulaştırmaya çalışan önermeler içermektedir. Çalışma kapsamında, Locke'un mülkiyet teorisinin üç öncüle dayandığı iddia edilmektedir. Bu öncüller, mülkiyetin emekle başladığı, Amerika'daki toprakların boş ve atıl durumda olduğu ve Amerika'da İngiltere'den farklı hukuki kuralların geçerli olabileceğidir. Locke, bu öncüllerden yola çıkarak, çitle çevrelenip işlenmemiş toprakların boş sayılacağını ve başkaları tarafından sahiplenilebileceğini ileri sürmüştür. Düşünürün emeğe dayalı mülkiyet teorisinin Amerika'daki yerli halklarla Avrupalı sömürgeciler arasındaki toprak uyuşmazlığında taraflardan birini desteklemek üzere geliştirilmiş olduğu kabul edilmektedir. Bu ise söz konusu teoriyi "politik bir araç" haline getirmektedir. Amerika'daki yerli halkların avcı-toplayıcı toplum modelini tarım toplumlarından "geri" kabul eden evrimci bir gelişme çizgisinin benimsenmesi, yerli halkları sömürgecilerle aynı zaman diliminde yaşadıkları halde geçmiş bir zaman dilimine yerleştirerek "ilkel" ve "vahşi" gibi ifadelerle nitelendirmesi ve bu tutumun kasıtlı olması da düşünürün mülkiyet teorisinin Fabian'ın "zamandaşlığın inkârı" teziyle örtüşmesi anlamına gelmektedir. Kaynak taraması yöntemiyle hazırlanan bu çalışmanın amacı da söz konusu örtüşmeye dikkat çekmek ve siyaset felsefesinde Locke'un mülkiyet teorisiyle ilgili çalışmalara katkıda bulunmaktır.

Keywords

John Locke , Mülkiyet Teorisi , Zamandaşlığın İnkârı , Allokronizm , Sömürgecilik

The Denial of Coevalness in John Locke's Theory of Property

Abstract

John Locke, who is considered one of the pioneer thinkers of the Enlightenment, developed his theory of property in the seventeenth century when England occupied North American lands. Locke, who served as an administrator for the English colonies in America for a long time and had investments in the slave trade, included such propositions in his theory of property that attempted to legitimize England's occupation of lands where indigenous peoples lived. In this study, it is claimed that Locke's theory of property is based on three premises. These premises are that property begins with labour, that lands in America are vacant and idle, and that different legal rules may apply in America than in England. Based on these premises, Locke argued that lands that are not fenced and cultivated are considered vacant and can be owned by others. It is accepted that the thinker's theory of property based on labour was developed to support one of the parties in the land dispute between the indigenous peoples in America and the European colonists. This makes the theory in question a "political tool." The adoption of an evolutionary development line that accepts the hunter-gatherer society model of the native peoples in America as "backward" from agricultural societies, the fact that he places the native peoples in a past time period despite living in the same time period as the colonizers and describes them with expressions such as "primitive" and "savage", and that this attitude is intentional indicate that the thinker's theory of property overlaps with Fabian's thesis of "denial of coevalness". The aim of this study, which was prepared with the literature review method, is to draw attention to this overlap and to contribute to studies on Locke's theory of property in political philosophy.

Keywords

John Locke , Theory of Property , Denial of Coevalness , Allochronism , Colonialism

References

• Addison, K. N. (2009). “We Hold These Truths to be Self-evident . . .” An Interdisciplinary Analysis of the Roots of Racism and Slavery in America. New York: University Press of America, Inc.
• Armitage, D. (2012). John Locke: Theorist of Empire?, Muthu, S. (Ed.). Empire and Modern Political Thought (84-111 ss.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Arneil, M. B. (1992). 'All the World was America': John Locke and the American Indian. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). University College London, Londra.
• Arneil, B. (1996). John Locke and America: The Defence of English Colonialism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Arneil, B. (2020). Origins: Colonies and Statistics. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 735–754. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000842392000116X
• Ashcroft B. (2010). Reading Post-colonial Australia. O'Reilly, N. (Ed.). Postcolonial Issues in Australian Literature (1-14 ss.). New York: Cambria. Baker, B. (2023). Evolution of Anti-slavery Sentiments from 1776 to 1865 & A Critique of Reparations. Journal of Business Diversity, 23(3), 15-37. https://doi.org/10.33423/jbd.v23i3.6419
• Bourbouri, K., Nowzari, H. A. and Shirzadi, R. (2021). A Comparative Glance at Thomas Hobbes and John Locke's Ideas on the Concept of Freedom. International Journal of Political Science, 11(4), 71-92.
• Çapar, S. ve Yıldırım, Ş. (2012). Hobbes ve Locke’un Devlet Düşüncesine Katkıları. Türk İdare Dergisi, 84(474), 1-29.
• Çilingir, L. (2019). Locke’un Toplum Sözleşmesi Kuramı. Temaşa Erciyes Üniversitesi Felsefe Bölümü Dergisi, 11, 31-43.
• Diamond, J. (1997). Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. Londra: Jonathan Cape.
• Dowding, K. (2019). Rational Choice and Political Power: The Original Text with Two New Chapters. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
• Fabian, J. (1983). Time and the Other. How Anthropology Makes its Object. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Goldie, M. (2016). Locke’s Life. Stuart, M. (Ed.). A Companion to Locke (27-44 ss.). West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell Publishing.
• Hannaford, I. (1996). Race: The History of an Idea in the West. Washington: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
• Hindess, B. (2007). Locke's State of Nature. History of the Human Sciences 20(3): 1-20. DOI: 10.1177/0952695107079331
• İnce, O. U. (2013). Colonial Capitalism and the Dilemmas of Liberalism: Locke, Burke, Wakefield and the British Empire. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Cornell University, Ithaca, ABD.
• Juhansar, A. L. (2021). John Locke: The Construction of Knowledge in the Perspective of Philosophy. Jurnal Filsafat Indonesia, 4(3), 254–260.
• Letwiniuk, T. (1998). John Locke: The Devonshire Farmer and the Disposession of the Amerindians of Belize and Guyana. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). University of Toronto, Toronto, Kanada.
• Locke J. (1996). İnsan Anlığı Üzerine Bir Deneme. (Çev. V. Hacıkadiroğlu) Kabalcı.
• Locke, J. (2000). İnsanın Anlama Yetisi Üzerine Bir Deneme. (Çev. M. Delikara Topçu) Ankara: Öteki Yayınevi.
• Locke, J. (2012). Yönetim Üzerine İkinci İnceleme: Sivil Yönetimin Gerçek Kökeni, Boyutu ve Amacı Üzerine Bir Deneme (2. Baskı). (Çev. F. Bakırcı). Ankara: Ebabil Yayınları.
• Pagden, A. (1998). The Struggle for Legitimacy and the Image of Empire in the Atlantic to c. 1700. Canny, N. (Ed.), The Oxford History of the British Empire: The Origins of Empire, V. 1, (34-55 ss.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Park K. S. (2022). The History Wars and Property Law: Conquest and Slavery as Foundational to the Field. The Yale Law Journal, 131(4): 1062–1153.
• Peters, J. D. (1989). John Locke, the Individual, and the Origin of Communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 75(4), 387-399, https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638909383886
• Rebeiro, B. (2023). Frederick Douglass and the Original Originalists. Brigham Young University Law Review, 48(3), 909-976.
• Rodriguez, J. P. (2007). Slavery in the United States: A Social, Political, and Historical Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
• Scanlon, T. (1976). Nozick on Rights, Liberty and Property. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 6(1), 3-25. Smith, L. G. and Smith, J. K. (1999). Lives in Education: A Narrative of People and Ideas (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Stannard, D. E. (1992). American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Strickland, L. and Wang, J. (2023). Racism and Eurocentrism in Histories of Philosophy. Open Journal of Philosophy, 13(1), 76-96. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojpp.2023.131005
• Tabanlı, F. (2019). Thomas Hobbes ve John Locke’un Devletin Kökeni Hakkındaki Görüşleri. Anadolu Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(2), 331-353.
• Tully, J. (1980). A Discourse on Property: John Locke and his Adversaries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Tully, J. (1993). An Approach to Political Philosophy: Locke in Contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Tully, J. (1998). Aboriginal Property and Western Theory: Recovering a Middle Ground. Armitage, D. (Ed.), Theories of Empire, 1450-1800 (345-372 ss.). Londra: Ashgate Publishing.
• Ward, L. (2010). John Locke and Modern Life. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Washburn, W. E. (1976). The Historical Context of American Indian Legal Problems. Law and Contemporary Problems, 40(1), 12–24.
• Welch, C. (2021). "Civilizing the 'Redman'…;": John Locke, Adam Smith and Social Darwinist Perceptions of Religion, Land-use and Progress as Policy to Make Extinct the Traditional Lifeways of North American Indian Peoples. Mounsey, C. (Ed.) Reconsidering Extinction in Terms of the History of Global Bioethics (68-93 ss.). New York: Routledge.
• Whitehead, J. (2012). John Locke, Accumulation by Dispossession and the Governance of Colonial India. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 42(1), 1–21.
• Wilentz, S (2002). America's lost egalitarian tradition. Daedalus, 131(1), 66-80.
• Williams, H. (2014). Colonialism in Kant's Political Philosophy. Diametros, 39, 154–181.
• Wootton, D. (2003) Introduction. Wootton, D. (Ed). John Locke: Political Writings (7-122 ss.). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.
• Zabunoğlu, H. G. (2016). Toplum Sözleşmesi Bağlamında John Locke'un Devlet Anlayışı. İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(2), 431-456. https://doi.org/10.21492/inuhfd.291309