Uluslararası İlişkilerde Devlet Kimliklerinin Özneler-arası İnşası: Bir Sınıflandırma Girişimi

Öz

Uluslararası İlişkiler’de rasyonalite ve reflektivite arasına bir orta yol çağrısı yapan inşacı çalışmaların sunduğu “via media” çalışmaların birbirinden farklılaşmalarını beraberinde getirmiş ve inşacılığın tanımlanmasıyla sınıflandırılmasına yönelik akademik ilgiyi artırmıştır. Zamanla literatürdeki farklı inşacılıklar birbirine yakınlaşmış, klasik sınıflandırmalar geçerliliğini yitirmiş ve inşacı literatürde durgunluk baş göstermiştir. Devlet kimliği gibi geleneksel inşacı sorunlardan uzaklaşılarak, inşacılığın ilgi alanlarının yeni sorunlarla zenginleştirilmesine yönelik bir tartışma gündeme gelmiştir. Ancak devlet uluslararası siyasetin hala en önemli öznesidir. Buna bağlı olarak devlet kimliği inşasının sorunsallaştırıldığı bu çalışmada analitik eklektizm çerçevesinde devlet kimliğine odaklanan inşacı yaklaşımlara yönelik uygulanabilir ve işlevsel bir sınıflandırma modelinin tasarlanması hedeflenmiştir. Bu çalışma pragmatik bir yaklaşım benimseyerek hem teorik esnekliği koruyan hem de pratik işlevselliği ön plana alan uygulanabilir bir sınıflandırma geliştirmeyi amaçlamıştır. Ad hoc veriyle desteklenen karşılaştırmalı literatür taramasına dayalı nitel bir yöntem kullanılan çalışmada mevcut literatürdeki sınıflandırmalar incelenmiş ve devlet kimliği özelinde özgünleştirilmiş bir sınıflandırma modeli önerilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İnşacılık
• Özneler-Arası Analiz Düzeyi
• Analitik Eklektizm
• Devlet Kimliği
• Pragmatik Dönüş

The Inter-subjective Construction of State Identities in International Relations: An Attempt at Classification

Öz

In international relations, constructivism provides a "via media" that advocates a middle ground between rationality and reflectivity. It has paved the way for both differentiation within constructivism and a greater scholarly interest in its definition and classification. Over time, various strands of constructivism have converged, rendering classical classifications outdated, which has led to stagnation within the constructivist literature. As a result, a debate has emerged about the need to move beyond traditional constructivist issues such as state identity, along with a growing push to expand the scope of constructivism to address new and emerging concerns. Nevertheless, the state remains a central and vital subject in international politics. By questioning the construction of state identity, this study seeks to develop a practical and functional classification model for constructivist approaches that address state identity within the framework of analytical eclecticism. To this end, adopting a pragmatic approach, this study employs a qualitative methodology, including a comparative literature review supported by ad hoc data, to propose an original and refined classification that focuses explicitly on state identity. These models aim to fill the gap in the existing literature while maintaining theoretical flexibility and emphasizing practical applicability.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Constructivism
• Inter-Subjectivity
• State Identity
• Analytic Eclecticism
• Pragmatist Turn

Kaynakça

1. Adler, E. (2013), Constructivism in International Relations: Sources, Contributions, and Debates, (Eds., W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse ve B. A. Simmons), s. 112-144, Handbook of International Relations, Londra: Sage.
2. Adler, E. (2005), Communitarian International Relations: The Epistemic Foundations of International Relations, Londra: Routledge.
3. Adler, E. (1997), Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics, European Journal of International Relations, 3(3), s. 319-363.
4. Adler, E. ve Pouliot, V. (2011), International Practices, International Theory, 3(1), s. 1-36.
5. Alexandrov, M. (2003), The Concept of State Identity in International Relations: A Theoretical Analysis, Journal of International Development and Cooperation, 10(1), s. 33-46.
6. Ashley, R. K. (1984), The Poverty of Neorealism, International Organization, 38(2), s. 225-286.
7. Barkin, S. (2010), Realist Constructivism: Rethinking International Relations Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Bayart, J. (1999), Kimlik Yanılsaması (Çev.: M. Moralı), İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.

9. Berger, P. L. ve Luckmann, T. (1966), The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
10. Boekle, H., Wagner, W. M. ve Rittberger, V. (2001), Norms and Foreign Policy: Constructivist Foreign Policy Theory, Tübinger Arbeitspapiere zur Internationalen Politik und Friedensforschung, 34(a), s. 1-46. Erişim adresi https://www.uni-tuebingen.de/uni/spi/taps/tap34a.htm (Erişim Tarihi: 12.12.2024).
11. Brown, C. ve Ainley, K. (2005), Understanding International Relations, New York: Palgrave.
12. Busekist, A. V. (2004), Uses and Misuses of the Concept of Identity, Security Dialogue, 35(1), s. 81-98.
13. Checkel, J. T. (1998), The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory, World Politics, 50(2), s. 324-348.
14. Checkel, J. T. (1999), Norms, Institutions, and National Identity in Contemporary Europe, International Studies Quarterly, 43(1), s. 83-114.
15. Checkel, J. T. (2004), Social Constructivism in Global and European Politics: A Review Essay, Review of International Studies, 30(2), s. 229-244.
16. Checkel, J. T. (2008), Constructivism and Foreign Policy, (Eds., S. Smith, A. Hadfield ve T. Dunne), Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases, s. 71-82, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. Christiansen, T., Jorgensen, K. E. ve Wiener, A. (1999), The Social Construction of Europe, Journal of European Public Policy, 6(4), s. 528-544.
18. Debrix, F. (2003), Language, Nonfoundationalism, International Relations, (Ed., F. Debrix), Language, Agency, and Politics in a Constructed World, s. 3-25, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
19. Der Derian, J. ve Wendt, A. (2020), Quantizing International Relations: The Case for Quantum Approaches to International Theory and Security Practice, Security Dialogue, 51(5), s. 399-413.
20. Doty, R. (1993), Foreign Policy as Social Construction: A Post-Positivist Analysis of U.S. Counter-Insurgency Policy in the Philippines, International Studies Quarterly, 37(3), s. 297-320.
21. Dunne, T. (1995), The Social Construction of International Society, European Journal of International Relations, 1(3), s. 367-389.
22. Fierke, K. M. (2001), Critical Methodology and Constructivism, (Ed.: K. M. Fierke ve K. E. Jorgensen), Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation, s. 115-135, Londra: M.E. Sharpe.
23. Finnemore, M. ve Wendt, A. (2024), When “Old” Constructivism Was New: Reflections on Classical Constructivism, Perspectives on Politics, 22(4), s. 1248-1268.
24. Friedrichs, J. ve Kratochwil, F. (2009), On Acting and Knowing: How Pragmatism Can Advance International Relations Research and Methodology, International Organization, 63(4), s. 701-731.
25. Goldstein, J. ve Keohane, R. O. (1993), Ideas and Foreign Policy: An Analytical Framework, (Eds., J. Goldstein ve R. O. Keohane), Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change, s. 3-30, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
26. Griffiths, M. (2005), Encyclopedia of International Relations and Global Politics, New York: Routledge.
27. Guzzini, S. (2000), A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations, European Journal of International Relations, 6(2), s. 147-182.
28. Hogg, M. ve Abrams, D. (1988), Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes, Londra: Routledge.
29. Hopf, T. (1998), The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory, International Security, 23(1), s. 171-200.
30. Hopf, T. (2002), Social Construction of International Politics: Identities and Foreign Policies, Moscow 1955 and 1999, Londra: Cornell University Press.
31. Hopf, T. (2010), The Logic of Habit in International Relations, European Journal of International Relations, 16(4), s. 539-561.
32. Jackson, R. ve Sorensen, G. (2007), Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33. Jacobsen, J. K. (2003), Dueling Constructivisms: A Post-Mortem on the Ideas in Mainstream IR/IPE, Review of International Studies, 29(1), s. 39-60.
34. Jenkins, R. (1996), Social Identity, Londra: Routledge.
35. Jepperson, R. L., Wendt, A. ve Katzenstein, P. J. (1996), Norms, Identity, and Culture in National Security, (Ed.: P. J. Katzenstein), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, s. 33-75, New York: Columbia University Press.
36. Katzenstein, P. J., Keohane, R. O. ve Krasner, S. D. (1998a), Preface: International Organization at Its Golden Anniversary, International Organization, 52(4), s. xv–xviii.
37. Katzenstein, P. J., Keohane, R. O. ve Krasner, S. D. (1998b), International Organization and the Study of World Politics, International Organization, 52(4), s. 645-685.
38. Keohane, R. O. (1988), International Institutions: Two Approaches, International Studies Quarterly, 32(4), s. 379- 396.
39. Klotz, A. (1995), Norms in International Relations: The Struggle Against Apartheid, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
40. Klotz, A. ve Lynch, C. (2007), Strategies for Research in Constructivist International Relations, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
41. Koslowski, R. ve Kratochwil, F. (1994), Understanding Change in International Politics: The Soviet Empire’s Demise and the International System, International Organization, 48(2), s. 215-247.
42. Krause, K. (1998), Critical Theory and Security Studies: The Research Program of Critical Security Studies, Cooperation and Conflict, 33(3), s. 298-334.
43. Krotz, U. (2010), Regularized Intergovernmentalism: France–Germany and Beyond (1963–2009), Foreign Policy Analysis, 6(2), s. 147-185.
44. Lake, D. A. (2011), Why ‘Isms’ Are Evil: Theory, Epistemology, and Academic Sects as an Impediment to Understanding and Progress, International Studies Quarterly, 55(2), s. 465-480.
45. Lo, B. (2003), Vladimir Putin and Evolution of Russian Foreign Policy, Londra: The Royal Institute of International Affairs: Blackwell Publishing.
46. McCourt, D. M. (2022), The New Constructivism in International Relations Theory, Bristol: Bristol University Press.
47. Mowle, T. S. (2003), Worldviews in Foreign Policy: Realism, Liberalism and External Conflict, Political Psychology, 24(3), s. 561-592.
48. Neumann, I. B. (1999), Uses of the Other, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
49. Onuf, N. G. (1998), Constructivism: A User’s Manual, (Eds., V. Kubalkova, N. Onuf ve P. Kowert), International Relations in a Constructed World, s. 58-78, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
50. Onuf, N. (1989), World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
51. Palan, R. (2000), A World of Their Making: An Evaluation of the Constructivist Critique in International Relations, Review of International Studies, 26(4), s. 575-598.
52. Price, R. (1997), The Chemical Weapons Taboo, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
53. Price, R. ve Reus-Smit, C. (1998), Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and Constructivism, European Journal of International Relations, 4(3), s. 259-294.
54. Reus-Smit, C. (2005), Constructivism, (Eds., S. Burchill, A. Linklater, R. Devetak, J. Donnelly, T. Nardin, M. Paterson, C. Reus-Smit ve J. True), Theories of International Relations, s. 188-212, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
55. Reus-Smit, C. (1999), The Moral Purpose of the State: Culture, Social Identity, and Institutional Rationality in International Relations, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
56. Reus-Smit, C. (1996), The Constructivist Turn: Critical Theory After the Cold War, Department of International Relations, Australian National University. Working Paper (4), s. 1-16., https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/41066/3/96-4.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 14.12.2024)
57. Risse, T. ve Wiener, A. (1999), ‘Something Rotten’ and the Social Construction of Social Constructivism: A Comment on Comments, Journal of European Public Policy, 6(5), s. 775-782.
58. Ross, A. A. G. (2006), Coming in from the Cold: Constructivism and Emotions, European Journal of International Relations, 12(2), s. 197-222.
59. Ruggie, J. G. (1998a), Together? Neo-Utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge, International Organization, 52(4), s. 855-885.
60. Ruggie, J. G. (1998b), Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalization, Londra: Routledge.
61. Ruggie, J. G. (1986), Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a Neorealist Synthesis, R. O. Keohane (Ed.), Neorealism and Its Critics, s. 131-157, New York: Columbia University Press.
62. Sil, R. (2020), Analytic Eclecticism-Continuing the Conversation, International Journal: Canada’s Journal of Global Policy Analysis, 75(3), s. 433-443.
63. Sil, R. ve Katzenstein, P. J. (2010), Analytical Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics: Reconfiguring Problems and Mechanisms Across Research Traditions, Perspectives on Politics, 8(2), s. 411-431.
64. Smith, S. (2001), Foreign Policy is What States Make of It: Social Construction and International Relations Theory, V. Kubalkova (Ed.), Foreign Policy in a Constructed World, s. 38-55, Londra: M.E. Sharpe.
65. Smith, S. (1996), Positivism and Beyond, (Eds., S. Smith, K. Booth ve M. Zalewski), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, s. 11-44, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
66. Snyder, J. (2004), One World, Rival Theories, Foreign Policy, 83(6), s. 52-62.
67. Şatana, N. S. (2015), Uluslararası İlişkilerde Bilimsellik, Metodoloji ve Yöntem, Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 12(46), s. 10-33.
68. Şimşek Özkan, E. (2015), Kimlik ve Dış Politika: Rusya Federasyonu’nun Bosna-Hersek ve Kosova Politikalarında Kimliğin Rolü, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, T.C. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
69. Teaching, Research and International Policy. (2017), The 2017 TRIP Faculty Survey, College of William & Mary. https://trip.wm.edu/research/faculty-surveys (Erişim Tarihi: 12.14.2024).
70. Teaching, Research and International Policy. (2011), The 2014 TRIP Faculty Survey, College of William & Mary. https://trip.wm.edu/research/faculty-surveys (Erişim Tarihi: 12.14.2024).
71. Teaching, Research and International Policy. (2004), The 2004 TRIP Faculty Survey, College of William & Mary. https://trip.wm.edu/research/faculty-surveys (Erişim Tarihi: 12.14.2024).
72. Thorun, C. (2009), Explaining Change in Russian Foreign Policy: The Role of Ideas in Post-Soviet Russia’s Conduct Towards the West, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
73. Tsygankov, A. P. (2006), Russia’s Foreign Policy: Change and Continuity in National Identity, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
74. Tsygankov, A. P. ve Tarver-Wahlquist, M. (2009), Dueling Honors: Power, Identity and the Russia-Georgia Divide, Foreign Policy Analysis, 5(4), s. 307-326.
75. Waltz, K. N. (1979), Theory of International Politics, Boston: McGraw-Hill.
76. Weber, C. (2010), International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction, Londra: Routledge.
77. Wendt, A. (2003), Why a World State is Inevitable: Teleology and the Logic of Anarchy, European Journal of International Relations, 9(4), s. 491-542.
78. Wendt, A. (1999), Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
79. Wendt, A. (1994), Collective Identity Formation and the International State, The American Political Science Review, 88(2), s. 384-396.
80. Wendt, A. (1992), Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics, International Organization, 46(2), s. 391-426.
81. Zehfuss, M. (2001), Constructivism and Identity: A Dangerous Liaison, European Journal of International Relations, 7(3), s. 315-348.