21. Yüzyıl Bölge Çalışmaları: Üç Yaklaşım

Yıl 2022, , 359 - 382, 01.06.2022

Derya Göçer

https://doi.org/10.53376/ap.2022.13

Öz

Bölge çalışmaları 21. yüzyılda derin dönüşümler geçirmektedir. Bunların bir kısmı sosyal bilim disiplinlerindeki dönüşüme paralel gerçekleşmiş ve bu dönüşümlerde tek/çok kutupluluk, küreselleşme ve göç gibi dönemin başlıklarının etkisi görülmüştür. Bu dönüşümün arkasında alana yönelik sancılı bir eleştiri ve özeleştiri süreci vardır. Diğer yandan bölge çalışmaları alanına özgü yeni kuramsal ve yöntemsel eğilimler de ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu çalışmada bölge çalışmalarının küresel olarak geldiği yeni yer haritalandırılacak ayrıca yeni kuramsal ve yöntemsel eğilimler sunulacaktır. Bölge çalışmalarının 21. yüzyılda; ana akım bölge çalışmaları, karşılaştırmalı bölge çalışmaları ve eleştirel bölge çalışmaları olarak üç farklı eksende nasıl geliştiği, bu eksenlerin alanın geleneksel sorunlarına getirdiği çözümleri ve birbirleriyle ilişkilerini aktarılacaktır. Bu farklı eğilimlerin evrensel ve tikel; kuram ve ampirik veri gibi temel gerilimleri nasıl çözdüğüne, hangi bilgi kategorilerinde üretim yaptıklarına bakacak ve bölge çalışmalarının temel nesnesi olan “bölge”yi ontolojik açıdan nasıl kavramsallaştırdıklarını ele alacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bölge Çalışmaları, Karşılaştırmalı Bölge Çalışmaları, Eleştirel Bölge Çalışmaları, Bilgi Üretimi

Teşekkür

ODTÜ Bölge Çalışmaları doktora programının mezun ve devam eden öğrencilerine benimle bölge çalışmalarının geçmişini, bugününü ve geleceğini tartıştıkları için teşekkür ederim. Onların sınıftaki meydan okumaları, heyecanları ve yazdıkları tezler bu makaleye çok ilham vermiştir. Makalenin ilk taslağını okuyan ve desteğini hep hissettiğim Prof. Dr. Meliha Altunışık'a, bölge çalışmaları alanındaki yolculuğumun değişik aşamalarında desteklerini hissettiğim Doç. Dr. Ceren Ergenç, Dr. Zelal Özdemir, Doç. Dr. Onur Bahçecik ve Doç. Dr. Özgehan Şenyuva'ya çok teşekkür ederim. Son olarak Alternatif Politika dergisinin editörlerine ve hakemlerine yorumları ve emekleri için teşekkür ederim.

21st Century Area Studies: Three Approaches

Öz

In 21st century, area studies are undergoing deep transformations. Part of these transformations are occurring in parallel to transformation in disciplines in social sciences, reflecting the discussions around themes of this period, such as uni/multi polarity; globalization and migration. On the other hand, new theoretical and methodological tendencies that are unique to area studies are also emerging. Behind this period of transformations, there lies a painful process of criticism and self-reflection. This study will map out the area studies in this century and present its new approaches. 21st century area studies will be divided into three axes: mainstream area studies; comparative area studies and critical area studies. It will present their solutions to the traditional problems of the field and their interplay with one another. It will examine how that solve the classic tensions such as universal vs particular; theory vs empirical data; their knowledge production processes and their ontological approach to the “area”.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Area Studies, Comparative Area Studies, Critical Area Studies, Knowledge Production

Kaynakça

• Ahram, Ariel I., Patrick Köllner ve Rudra Sil, (2018), Comparative Area Studies: Methodological Rationales and Cross-Regional Applications (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
• Altunışık, Meliha (2014), “Geographical Representation of Turkey’s Cuspness: Discourse and Practice”, Robins, Philips ve Mark Herzog (Der.) The Role, Position and Agency of Cusp States in International Relations (London: Routledge): 25-41.
• Appadurai, Arjun (2010), “How Histories Make Geographies: Circulation and Context in a Global Perspective”, The Journal of Transcultural Studies, 1 (1): 4-13.
• Aris, Stephen (2020), “International vs. area? The disciplinary-politics of knowledge-exchange between IR and Area Studies”, International Theory, 13 (3): 51-482.
• Basedau, Matthias ve Patrick Köllner (2007), “Area studies, comparative area studies, and the study of politics: Context, substance, and methodological challenges”, Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, 1: 105-124.
• Bates, Robert H. (1997), ‘‘Area Studies and the Discipline: A Useful Controversy?’’, Political Science and Politics, 30 (2): 166-169.
• Berger, Mark T. (2007), “Keeping the World Safe for Primary Colors: Area Studies, Development Studies, International Studies, and the Vicissitudes of Nation-Building”, Globalizations, 4 (4): 429-444.
• Beyaz Saray (2021), https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/12/fact-sheet-president-biden-and-g7-leaders-launch-build-back-better-world-b3w-partnership/ (21.06.2021).
• Bernasconi, Robert (2015), Irk Kavramını Kim İcat Etti: Felsefi Düşüncede Irk ve Irkçılık (İstanbul: Metis Yayınları) (Çev. Zeynep Direk, İsmail Esiner, Nazlı Öktem ve Tendü Meriç).
• Braune, Ines ve Achim Rohde (2015), “Critical Area Studies”, Middle East - Topics & Arguments, 4: 5-11.
• Brenner, Neil ve Stuart Elden, (2009), ‘‘Henri Lefebvre on State, Space, Territory’’, International Political Sociology, 3: 353–377.
• Burawoy, Michael (2007), “Open the Social Sciences: To Whom and For What?”, Portuguese Journal of Social Science, 6 (3): 137-146.
• Cumings, Bruce (1997), “Boundary Displacement: Area Studies and International Studies during and after the Cold War”, Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, 29 (1): 6-26.
• Donati, Pierpaolo (2011), Relational Sociology: A New Paradigm for the Social Sciences (London: Routledge).
• Dutton, Michael (2005), “The Trick of Words: Asian Studies, Translation, and the Problems of Knowledge”, Steinmetz, George (Der.), The Politics of Method in the Human Sciences: Positivism and its epistemological others, (Durham/London: Duke University Press): 87-125.
• GİGA, German Institute for Global and Area Studies (2021), https://www.giga-hamburg.de/de/news/towards-comparative-area-studies-20/ (08.09.2021).
• Gilroy, Paul (1993), The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness (London: Verso).
• Göçer, Derya ve Meliha Altunışık (2018), “Locating Agency in Global Connections: The Case of India and Turkey as ‘Rising Powers’”, Jassal, Smita ve Halil Turan (Der.), New Perspectives on India and Turkey (London: Routledge): 141-154.
• Hok-Sze Leung, Helen ve Christine Kim (2019), “Editorial introduction: inter-Asia beyond Asia”, Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 20 (2): 159-161.
• Huat, Chua B., Ken Dean, Ho Engseng, Ho Kong Chong, Jonathan Rigg ve Brenda Yeoh (2019), “Area Studies and the crisis of legitimacy: a view from South East Asia”, South East Asia Research, 27 (1): 31-48.
• Hutt, Michael (2019), “Area Studies and the Importance of ‘Somewheres’”, South East Asia Research, 27 (1): 21-25.
• Khoo, Olivia (2019), “Diaspora as Method: Inter-Asia Cultural Studies and the Asian Australian Studies Research Network”, Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 20 (2): 290-301.
• Khosrowjah, Hossein (2011), “A Brief History of Area Studies and International Studies”, Arab Studies Quarterly, 33 (3/4): 131-142.
• Lee, Christopher, Kuan-Hsing Chen, Sneja Gunew, Michelle O’Brien, Audrey Yue ve Rusaba Alam (2019), “Trajectories, Institutions, and Re-locations: A Conversation on Inter-Asia Outside Asia”, Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 20 (2): 341-355.
• Lefebvre, Henri (1991), The Production of Space (MA: Blackwell Publishing).
• Le guin, Ursula K. (1974), The Dispossesed (London: Harper).
• Malak, Karim ve Sara Salem (2015), ‘‘Reorientalizing the Middle East: The Power Agenda Setting Post-Arab Uprisings’’, Middle East Topics and Arguments, 4: 93-109.
• Mayer, Maximillian ve Xin Zhang (2020), “Theorizing China-world Integration: Sociospatial Reconfigurations and the Modern Silk Roads”, Review of International Political Economy, 28 (4): 974-1003.
• Michelutti, Lucia, Navtej Purewal, Edward Simpson ve Clarinda Still (2017), “Area Studies and Anthropology in the Age of Acceleration”, South Asian Review, 38 (3): 33-42.
• Mielke, Katja ve Anna-Katharina Hornidge (2017), ‘‘Introduction: Knowledge Production, Area Studies and the Mobility Turn’’, Katka Mielke ve Anna Katharina Hornidge (Der.), Area Studies at the Crossroads: Knowledge Production after the Mobility Turn (New York: Palgrave): 3-26.
• Mignolo, David. W. (2002), “The Geopolitics of Knowledge and the Colonial Difference”, The South Atlantic Quarterly, 101 (1): 57-96.
• Mitchell, Timothy (2003), “Deterritorialization and the Crisis of Social Science”, Ali Mirsepassi, Amrita Basu ve Frederick. Weaver (Der.), Localizing Knowledge in a Globalizing World: Recasting the Area Studies Debate (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press): 148-170.
• Moisio, Sami ve Anssi Paasi (2013), “Beyond State-Centricity: Geopolitics of Changing State Spaces”, Geopolitics, 18 (2), 255-266.
• Moore, Barrington (1966), Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World (Boston, MA: Beacon Press).
• Oettler, Anika (2015), “Comparing What to What? Intersecting Methodological Issues in Comparative Area Studies and Transitional Justice Research”, Middle East – Topics & Arguments, 4: 38-49.
• Robins, Philip ve Mark Herzog (2014), The Role, Position and Agency of Cusp States in International Relations (London: Routledge).
• Sadiki, Larbi (2014), ‘‘Unruliness through Space and Time: Reconstructing ‘Peoplehood’ in the Arab Spring’’, Sadiki, Larbi (Der.), Routledge Handbook of the Arab Uprising: Rethinking Democratization (London: Routledge).
• Saylor, Ryan (2020), “Comparative Area Studies: A Route to New Insights”, Qualitative and Multi-Method Research, 17-18 (1): 1-6.
• Schramm, Katharina (2008), “Leaving Area Studies behind: the challenge of diasporic connections in the field of African studies”, African and Black Diaspora: An International Journal, 1 (1): 1-12.
• Selg, Peeter ve Andreas Ventsel (2020), Introducing Relational Political Analysis: Political Semiotics as a Theory and Method (New York: Palgrave).
• Smith, Neil (2010), “Remapping Area Knowledge: Beyond Global/Local”, Wesley-Smith, Terrence ve Jon Goss (Der.), Remaking area studies: teaching and learning across Asia and the Pacific (Mānoa: University of Hawai‘i Press): 5-23.
• Strober, Myra H. (2011), Interdisciplinary Conversations Challenging Habits of Thought (Stanford: Stanford University Press).
• Teti, Andrea, Darcy Thompson ve Christopher Noble (2013), “EU Democracy Assistance Discourse in Its New Response to a Changing Neighbourhood”, Democracy and Security, 9 (1-2): 61-79.
• Tuathail, Gearóid Ó. ve Timothy W. Luke, (1994), “Present at the (Dis)integration: Deterritorialization and Reterritorialization in the New Wor(l)d Order”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 84 (3): 381-398.
• Wallerstein, Immanuel (1996), Open the Social Sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social (California: Stanford University Press).
• Wesley-Smith, Terrence ve Jon Goss (Der.) (2010), Remaking Area Studies: Teaching and Learning Across Asia and the Pacific (Mānoa: University of Hawai‘i Press).
• Wolf, Eric R. (1982), Europe and the Peoples without History (California: University of California Press.).