Uluslararası İlişkilerde Amerikan Merkezliliği: Kurumsal Hâkimiyet, Yayıncılık Yoğunlaşması ve Teorik Alanın Yapısı

Öz

Uluslararası İlişkiler disiplininin ABD sosyal bilimi olduğu ile ilgili varsayımlar Stanley Hoffmann’ın iddiasından bugüne Uluslararası İlişkiler uzmanları arasında tartışılan bir konu olmuştur. Öyle ki, ABD merkezliliğine yönelik eleştirilerle başlayan bu tartışmalar, Uluslararası İlişkilerin daha kapsayıcı bir şekilde anlaşılması çağrılarını teşvik etmiş ve “çevre”nin disipline daha fazla dâhil edilmesi ve “Küresel Uİ” çağrısına dönüşmüştür. Bu yolda bu çalışmanın amacı da ABD’nin Uİ disiplinine nasıl ve ne şekilde hâkim olduğunu sistematik olarak araştırarak tartışmayı yeniden alevlendirmektir. Genel ve belirsiz bir hâkimiyet biçimlerinden bahsetmek yerine, çalışma ABD’nin Uİ’deki hâkimiyet unsurlarını parçalara ayırarak ve potansiyel olarak Uİ’de hâkimiyet kurabileceği yolları ve bunun nasıl ölçülebileceğini belirterek başlar. Çalışmanın yöntemi ilk olarak disiplinin ABD merkezli yapısını tarihsel, teorik ve kurumsal düzeylerde sorgulayan mevcut literatürden ve ikincil olarak TRIP anketlerinden elde edilen ikincil ampirik verilerine dayanmaktadır. Çalışma, Uluslararası İlişkiler disiplininin entelektüel, kuramsal ve kurumsal yapısını karşılaştırmalı ve uzunlamasına biçimde incelemeye olanak tanıyan kapsamlı ve sistematik uluslararası veri setlerini sunması nedeniyle TRIP anketlerinden faydalanmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular, Uluslararası İlişkiler disiplininin mevcut yapısal eşitsizlikler çerçevesinde hâlâ ABD’nin akademik ve entelektüel hâkimiyeti altında sürekliliğini koruduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Uluslararası İlişkiler Disiplini
• ABD Hâkimiyeti
• Stanley Hoffmann

American Centricity in International Relations: Institutional Dominance, Publishing Concentration and the Structure of the Theoretical Field

Öz

The assumption that the discipline of International Relations is a US centric social science has been a subject of debate among International Relations scholars since Stanley Hoffmann's claim. In fact, these debates, which began with criticisms of US centrism, have encouraged calls for a more inclusive understanding of IR and have evolved into calls for greater inclusion of the ‘periphery’ in the discipline and for ‘Global IR’. In this vein, the aim of this study is to rekindle the debate by systematically investigating how and in what way the US dominates the discipline of IR. Instead of discussing general and vague forms of dominance, the study begins by dissecting the elements of US dominance and indicating the ways in which an actor can potentially dominate and how this can be measured. This study utilized TRIP questionnaires because they provide comprehensive and systematic international datasets that allow for a comparative and longitudinal examination of the intellectual, theoretical, and institutional structure of the discipline of International Relations. The findings show that the IR discipline still maintains its American-centeredness through existing structural inequalities.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• International Relations
• US Dominance
• Stanley Hoffmann

Kaynakça

1. Abbott, A. (2001). Chaos of Disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2. Accounting Insights Team. (2025). SSCI Journal Rankings: Impact on Academic Success and Careers. https://accountinginsights.org/ssci-journal-rankings-impact-on-academic-success-and-careers/
3. Acharya, A. ve Buzan, B. (2017). Why is There No Non-Western International Relations Theory? Ten Years on. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 17(3), 341-370. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcx006
4. Acharya, A. (2016). Introduction: Advancing Global IR: Challenges, Contentions, and Contributions. International Studies Review, 18(1), 4-15. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viv016
5. Alker, H. ve Biersteker, T. (1984). The Dialectics of World Order: Notes for a Future Archeologist of International Savoir Faire. International Studies Quarterly, 28(2), 121-142. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600692.
6. Ake, C. (1982). Social science as imperialism: A theory of political development. Ibadan University Press.
7. Arlene, T. (2003). Seeing IR Differently: Notes from the Third World. Millennium, 32(2), 295-324. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298030320020301
8. Ashley, R. K. (1987). The Geopolitics of Geopolitical Space: Toward a Critical Social Theory of International Politics. Alternatives, 12(4), 403-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/030437548701200401

9. Avcı, Y. ve Arslantaş, E. (2025). Pozitivizm ve Post-Pozitivizm Kıskacında Uluslararası İlişkiler. Iğdır Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(38), 156-183. https://doi.org/10.54600/igdirsosbilder.1494865
10. Aydın, M. ve Dizdaroğlu, C. (2019). Türkiye’de Uluslararası İlişkiler: TRIP 2018 Sonuçları Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme. Uluslararası İlişkiler/International Relations, 16(64), 3-28. DOI: 10.33458/uidergisi.652877
11. Aydınlı, E. ve Gültekin, G. (2018). Widening the World of IR: A Typology of Homegrown Theorizing. All Azimuth, 7(1), 45-68. https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.328427
12. Aydınlı, E. ve Mathews, J. (2000). Are the Core and Periphery Irreconcilable? The CuriousWorld of Publication in Contemporary International Relations. International Studies Perspectives, 1(3), 289-303. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44218134
13. Aydınlı, E. ve Mathews, J. (2008). Periphery Theorising for a Truly Internationalised Discipline: Spinning IR Theory Out of Anatolia. Review of International Studies, 34(4), 693-712. doi:10.1017/S0260210508008231
14. Aydınlı, E. (2023). Theory importation and the death of homegrown disciplinary potential: an autopsy of Turkish IR. Third World Quarterly, 45(3), 513-530. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2023.2257141
15. Behera, N. C. (2007). Re-Imaging in India. International Relations of the Asia Pacific, 7(3), 341-368. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26159494
16. Biersteker, T. (2009). The Parochialism of Hegemony: Challenges for ‘American’ International Relations. A. B. Tickner ve O. Wæver (Ed.) IR Scholarship Around the World: Worlding Beyond the West içinde (ss. 308-327). Oxon: Routledge.
17. Bilgin, P. (2007). Thinking past ‘Western’ IR? Third World Quarterly, 29(1), 5-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436590701726392
18. Bilgin, P. (2021). How not to Globalise IR: ‘Centre’ and ‘Periphery’ as Constitutive of the International. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 18(70), 13-27. DOI: 10.33458/uidergisi.960548
19. Bleiker, R. (2001). Forget IR Theory. S. Chan, P. Mandaville ve R. Bleiker (Ed.) The Zen of International Relations: IR Theory from East to West içinde (ss. 37-67). New York: Palgrave.
20. Bostanoğu, B. (1999). Türkiye ABD İlişkilerinin Politikası. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
21. Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo Academicus. Stanford University Press.
22. Breuning, M., Bredehoft, J. ve Walton, E. (2005). Promise and Performance: An Evaluation of Journals in International Relations. International Studies Perspectives, 6(4), 447-461. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44218428
23. Brown, C. (2001). Fog in the Channel: Continental International Relations Theory Isolated. R. M. A. Crawford ve D. S. L. Jarvis (Ed.) International Relations-Still an American Social Science? Toward Diversity InInternational Thought içinde (ss. 203-261). Albany: State University of New York Press.
24. Cambridge University Press Annual Report. (2023). https://www.cambridge.org/about-us/annual-report
25. Canagarajah, A. (2002). A Geopolitics of Academic Writing. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
26. Clauset, A., Arbesman, S. ve Larremore, D. B. (2015). Systematic inequality and hierarchy in faculty hiring networks. Science Advances, 1(1), e1400005. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400005
27. Cox, R. (1981). Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. Millennium, 10(2), 126-155. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298810100020501
28. Crawford, R. M. A. (2001). International Relations as an Academic Discipline: If It’s Good for America, Is It Good for the World?. R. M. A. Crawford ve D. S. L. Jarvis (Ed.) International Relations-Still an American Social Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought içinde (ss. 1-21). Albany: State University of New York Press.
29. Crysler, C. G. (2003). Writing Spaces: Discourses of Architecture, Urbanism and the Built Environment, 1960–2000. London: Routledge.
30. Çalış, H. Ş. (2024). Küresel İlişkiler ve Anarşizm, Teorik Bir Makale. Konya: Çizgi Yayınları.
31. Çapan, Z. G. (2017). Decolonising International Relations? Third World Quarterly, 38(1), 1-15. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26156094
32. Çapan, Z. G. (2016). Re-writing International Relations: History and Theory Beyond Eurocentrism ın Turkey. London: Rowman & Little field International.
33. D’Aoust, A. (2015). IR as a Social Science/IR as an American Social Science, R. Denemark (Ed.) The International Studies Compendium Project içinde (ss. 1-34). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
34. Dağı, İ. (1996). Les Liasons Dangereuses: Akademya, Devlet ve Uluslararası İlişkiler. Liberal Düşünce, 2, 76-82.
35. Dyer, H. L. ve Mangasarian, L. (1989). The Study of International Relations: The State of the Art. Hampshire: The Macmillan Press Ltd.
36. Entringer, I., Blanes, G., Peterson, S. ve Tierney, J. M. (2024). 30 Mart 2025 tarihindehttps://foreignpolicy.com/2024/07/30/international-relations-school-rankings-university-undergraduate-masters-phd-programs/ adresinden erişildi.
37. Erdoğan, E. (2023). Akademide Eşitsizlik Nasıl Kurumsallaşıyor Sıralama Ölçme ve Etki Reflektif Youtube Yayını. Reflektif Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(1), 127-156.
38. Friedrichs, J. ve Wæver, O. (2009). Western Europe: Structure And Strategy At The National And Regional Levels. A. Tickner ve O. Wæver (Ed.) IR Scholarship Around the World: Worlding Beyond the West içinde (ss. 261-286). Oxon: Routledge.
39. Friedrichs, J. (2004). European Approaches to International Relations Theory; A House With Many Mansions. London: Routledge.
40. Goldmann, K. (1995). Im Westen Nichts Neues: Seven International Relations Journals in 1972 and 1992. European Journal of International Relations, 1(2), 245-258. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066195001002005.
41. Grovogui, S. N. (2006). Beyond Eurocentrism and Anarchy: Memories of International Order and Institutions. Palgrave Macmillan.
42. Hagmann, J. ve Biersteker, T. (2012). Beyond the published discipline: Toward a Critical Pedagogy of International Studies. European Journal of International Relations, 20(2), 291-315. DOI:10.1177/1354066112449879
43. Halliday, F. (1990). The Pertinence of International Relations. Political Studies, 38(3), 502-516. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1990.tb01084.x
44. Hoffmann, S. (1977). An American Social Science: International Relations. Daedalus, 106(3), 41-60. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024493.
45. Holsti, K. (1985). The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory. London: Allen & Unwin.
46. Inoguchi, T. ve Bacon, P. (2001). The study of international relations in Japan: towards a more international discipline. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 1(1), 1–20. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26156640
47. Jorgensen, K. E. (2003). Towards a Six-Continents Social Science: International Relations. Journal of International Relations and Development, 6(4), 330-343.
48. Krippendorf, E. (1987). The Dominance of American Approaches in International Relations. Millennium, 16(2), 207-214. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298870160022601
49. Kristensen, M. P. (2015). Revisiting the “American Social Science”-Mapping the Geography of International Relations. International Studies Perspectives, 16(3), 246–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/insp.12061
50. Kristensen, P. M. (2012). Dividing Discipline: Structures of Communication in International Relations. International Studies Review, 14(1), 32-50. DOI:10.2307/41428881
51. Lapid, Y. (1989). The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era. International Studies Quarterly, 33(3), 235-254. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600457
52. Lebedeva, M. M. (2004). International Relations Studies in the USSR/Russia: Is there a Russian National School of IR Studies? Global Society 18(3), 263-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360082042000221478
53. Lohaus, M. ve Wemheuer-Vogelaar, W. (2021). Who Publishes Where? Exploring the Geographic Diversity of Global IR Journals. International Studies Review, 23(3), 645-669. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viaa062
54. Maliniak, D., Peterson, S. ve Tierney, M. J. (2012). TRIP Around the World: Teaching, Research, and Policy Views of International Relations Faculty in 20 Countries. Williamsburg, VA: Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations. 16 Mart 2025 tarihinde https://trip.wm.edu/ adresinden erişildi.
55. Maliniak, D., Peterson, S., Powers, R. ve Tierney, M. J. (2014). TRIP 2014 Faculty Survey. Williamsburg, VA: Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations. https://trip.wm.edu/data/dashboard adresinden erişildi.
56. Maliniak, D., Peterson, S., Powers, R. ve Tierney, J. M. (2017). TRIP 2017 Faculty Survey. Teaching, Research, and International Policy Project, Williamsburg, VA: Global Research Institute. 18 Mart 2025 tarihinde https://trip.wm.edu/ adresinden erişildi.
57. Mignolo, W. D. (2011). The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options. Duke University Press.
58. Mohrman, K. (2008). The Emerging Global Model with Chinese Characteristics. Higher Education Policy, 21(1), 29-48. DOI:10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300174
59. Mushelenga, P. (2018). The Role of the Academia in Foreign Policymaking: International Practices and Perspectives as Lessons for Namibia. India Quarterly A Journal of International Affairs, 74(2), 215-233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0974928418766734
60. Neal, F. W. ve Bruce D. Hamlett. 1969. “The Never-Never Land of International Relations.” International Studies Quarterly 13(3): 281–305. https://doi.org/10.2307/3013532.
61. Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S. J. (2013). Coloniality of power in postcolonial Africa: Myths of decolonization. CODESRIA
62. Newsom, D. (1995). Foreign Policy and Academia. Foreign Policy, 101, 52-67. https://doi.org/10.2307/1149406.
63. Norman D. P. (1980). The Study of International Relations in the United States: Perspectives of Half Century Author(s) Source. International Studies Quarterly, 24(3), 343-363. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600251
64. Nossal, K. (2001). Tales That Textbooks Tell: Ethnocentricity and Diversity in American Introductions to International Relations. R. M. A. Crawford ve D. S. L. Jarvis (Ed.) International Relations-Still an American Social Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought içinde (ss. 167-186). Albany: State University of New York Press.
65. Olson, W. (1972). The Growth of a Discipline. B. Porter (Ed.) The Aberystwyth Papers: International Politics 1919-1969 içinde (ss. 1-19). London: Oxford University.
66. Parmar, I. (2011). American Hegemony, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Rise of Academic International Relations in the US. N. Guilhot (Ed.) The Invention of International Relations Theory içinde (ss. 182-209). New York: Columbia University Press.
67. Pasha, M. K. ve Craig N. M. (2002). Knowledge/Power/Inequality. M. K. Pasha, ve N. M. Murphy (Ed.) International Relations and the New Inequality içinde (ss. 1-6). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
68. Ping, H. (2010). The Status of the Social Sciences in China. World Social Science Report. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. 73-76.
69. Princeton University Press Annual Report (2022). https://press.princeton.edu/about/annual-report
70. Walker, R. B. J. (1993). Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
71. Richardson, N. R. (1989). The Study of International Relations in the United States. H. C. Dyer ve L. Mangasarian (Ed.) The Study of International Relations: The State of the Art içinde (ss.281-295). Hampshire: The Macmillan Press Ltd.
72. REF2029. (2024). 22 Nisan 2025 tarihinde https://2029.ref.ac.uk/ adresinden erişildi.
73. Robles, A. (1993). How ‘International’ are International Relations Syllabi?. Political Science and Politics, 26(3), 526-528. https://doi.org/10.2307/419996
74. Rumelili, B. (2009). Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorisinde Yerel-Görüşlülük ve Doğu’nun Özneselliği. Uluslararası İlişkiler/International Relations, 6(23), 45–71. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43926452
75. Schmidt, B. (2013). On the History And Historiography Of International Relations. W. Carlsnaes., T. Risse ve B. A. Simmons (Ed.) On The History and Historiography of International Relations içinde (ss. 3-28). SAGE Publications Ltd.
76. Schoeman, M. (2009). South Africa: Between History and a Hard Place. A. Tickner ve O. Wæver (Ed.) IR Scholarship Around the World: Worlding Beyond the West içinde (ss.53-70). Oxon: Routledge.
77. Shih, C. (2021). Sinicizing International Relations: Self, Civilization, And Intellectual Politics In Subaltern East Asia. Routledge.
78. Smith, S. (1987). Paradigm Dominance in International Relations: The Development of International Relations as a Social Science. Millennium, 16(2), 189-206. https://doi.org/10.1177/030582988701600225
79. Smith, S. (2000). The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social Science?. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2(3), 374-402. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-856X.00042
80. Smith, S. (2002). The United States and the Discipline of International Relations: Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline. International Studies Review, 4(2), 67-85. https://doi.org/10.1111/1521-9488.00255
81. Tickner, A. B. (2009). Latin America: Still Policy Dependent After All These Years? A. B. Tickner ve O. Wæver (Ed.) IR Scholarship Around the World: Worlding Beyond the West içinde (ss. 32-52). Oxon: Routledge.
82. Tickner, A. B. (2013). Core, Periphery and (Neo)Imperialist International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 627-646. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494323
83. Tickner, A. B. ve Wæver, O. (2009). IR Scholarship Around the World: Worlding Beyond the West. Oxon: Routledge.
84. Turton, H. (2015). International Relations and American Dominance: A Diverse Discipline. London: Routledge.
85. Quijano, A. (2000). Coloniality of Power and Eurocentrism in Latin America. International Sociology, 15(2), 215-232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580900015002005.
86. Qin, Y. (2018). A relational theory of world politics. Cambridge University Press.
87. Volten, M. E. P. (2004). Theory of International Relations in Europe: A Social Science Stillborn or Still Born and Raised in America? SGIR Conference Paper. The Hague.
88. Vüllers, J. (2014). Geographical patterns of analysis in IR research: Representative cross-regional comparison as a way forward. GIGA Working Papers. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2554336
89. Wæver, O. (1996). Figures in International Thought: Introducing Persons Instead of Paradigms. I. B. Neumann ve O. Wæver (Ed.) The Future of International Relations: Masters in the Making? içinde (ss.1-38). London: Routledge.
90. Wæver, O. (1998). The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations. International Organization, 52(4), 687-727. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2601355.
91. Wæver, O. (2007). Still a discipline After All These Debates? T. Dunne, M. Kukri ve S. Smith, (Ed.) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity içinde (ss. 288-308). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
92. Wallace, W. (1996). Truth and Power, Monks and Technocrats: Theory and Practice in International Relations. Review of International Studies, 22(3), 301-321. doi:10.1017/S026021050011856X
93. WOS. (2024). 12 Nisan 2025 tarihinde https://mjl.clarivate.com/search-results adresinden erişildi.