Theorizing The State and Its Autonomy in Western IR: A Comparative Analysis of Realist and Historical Sociological Approaches

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2, 131 - 151, 30.12.2021

Alper Kaliber

Öz

This article examines how the state, its core characteristics, domestic and international agential capacities are conceptualized by the realist paradigms of IR and Weberian Historical Sociology (WHS) as its critique. In doing this, the study seeks to address the pitfalls and deficiencies of the realist conception of the state and unravel limitations and strengths of WHS to remedy these Realist deficiencies to reach a more sophisticated theory of the state. It also calls for a serious engagement between WHS and post-positivist IR to theorise the historically and politically constructed nature of state identity and to transcend the internal/international divide characterising the Realist epistemology.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Neo-Weberian Historical Sociology, Realism, State in International Relations, State’s international agency, State autonomy

Theorizing The State and Its Autonomy in Western IR: A Comparative Analysis of Realist and Historical Sociological Approaches

Öz

Bu makale, Realist uluslararası ilişkiler geleneğinde ve onun eleştirisi olarak Yeni-Weberci Tarihsel Sosyolojide devletin, onun temel niteliklerinin ve ulusal ve uluslararası siyasal kapasitelerinin nasıl kavramsallaştırıldığını incelemektedir. Bunu yaparken makalenin başlıca amacı, Realizmin devlet kavramsallaştırmasının tuzaklarını ve eksikliklerini ortaya koymak ve daha gelişkin bir devlet teorisine ulaşma yolunda bu eksikliklerin aşılması için Yeni-Weberci Tarihsel Sosyolojinin kısıtlılıklarını ve güçlü yanlarını açığa çıkarmaktır. Bu çalışma ayrıca devlet kimliğinin tarihsel ve siyasal inşa edilmişliğini kuramsallaştırmak ve Realist epistemolojiye damgasını vuran ulusal/uluslararası ayrımını aşabilmek için Yeni-Weberci Tarihsel Sosyoloji ile Pozitivizm sonrası uluslararası ilişkiler yaklaşımları arasında sıkı bir diyalog kurulması çağrısında bulunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Neo-Weberci Tarihsel Sosyoloji, Realizm, Uluslararası ilişkilerde devlet, Devletin uluslararası kapasitesi, Devletin özerkliği

Kaynakça

• Aron, R. (1966) War and peace: A theory of international relations, trans. R. Howart & A. Baker Fox, Weidenfelt and Nicolson.
• Ashley, R. K. (1981) Political realism and human interests, International Studies Quarterly, 25, 204-34.
• Ashley, R. K. (1983) Three modes of economism, International Studies Quarterly, 27(4), 463-496.
• Banchoff, T. (1999) German identity and European integration”, European Journal of International Relations, 5(3), 259-289.
• Barnett, M. and Finnemore, M. (2004) Rules for the world: International organizations in global politics, Cornell University Press.
• Bartelson J. (1995) A genealogy of sovereignty, Cambridge University Press.
• Bhambra, G. K. (2010) Historical sociology, international relations and connected histories, Cambridge Review of International Relations, 23(1), 127-143. Butler, J. (1990) Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity, Routledge.
• Campbell, D. (1998) Writing security: United States foreign policy and the politics of identity, rev. ed., University of Minnesota Press.
• Connolly, W. E. (1991) Identity/difference: Democratic negotiations of political paradox, Cornell University Press.
• Finnemore, M. (2003) The purpose of intervention: Changing beliefs about the use of force, Cornell University Press.
• Giddens, A. (1985) The nation state and violence: Volume two of a contemporary critique of historical materialism, University of California Press.
• Gilpin, R. (1975) US power and the multinational corporation: the political economy of foreign direct investment, Basic Books.
• Gilpin, R. (1981) War and change in international politics, Cambridge University Press.
• Griffiths, M. (1992) Realism, idealism and international politics, Routledge.
• Halliday, F. (1999) Revolution in world politics, Macmillan.
• Halliday, F. (2002) For an international sociology, in S. Hobden and J. M. Hobson (eds.) Historical sociology of international relations, Cambridge University Press, pp. 244-264.
• Halperin, S. (1998) Shadowboxing: Weberian historical sociology vs. state centric international relations theory”, Review of International Political Economy, 5(2), 327-339.
• Hintze, O. (1975) The historical essays of Otto Hintze, F. Gilbert (ed), Oxford University Press.
• Hobden, S. (1998) International relations and historical sociology, Routledge.
• Hobden, S. (1999) Theorising the international system: Perspectives from historical sociology, Review of International Studies, 25, 257–271.
• Hobson, J. M. (1997) The wealth of states: A comparative sociology of international economic and political change, Cambridge University Press.
• Hobson, J. M. (1998) The historical sociology of the state and the state of historical sociology in international relations, Review of International Political Economy, 5(2), 284–320.
• Hobson, J. M. (2000) The state and international relations, Cambridge University Press.
• Hobson, J. M. (2002a) What’s At Stake in ‘Bringing International Sociology Back into International Relations? Transcending Chronofetishism and Tempocentrism in International Relations, in S. Hobden and J. M. Hobson (eds.), Historical sociology of international relations, Cambridge University Press, pp. 3-41.
• Hobson, J. M. (2002b) The Two Waves of Weberian Historical Sociology in International Relations, in S. Hobden and J. M. Hobson (eds.), Historical sociology of international relations, Cambridge University Press, pp. 63-81.
• Hobson, J. M. (2007) Reconstructing international relations through world history: Oriental globalization and the global–dialogic conception of inter-civilizational relations”, International Politics 44, 414-430.
• Hobson, J. M., Lawson, G. and Rosenberg, J. (2010) Historical Sociology, in R. A. Denemark, (ed.) The international studies encyclopaedia, International Studies Association, pp. 3357-75.
• Hoffman, S. (1965) The state of war: Essays on the theory and practice of international relations, Praegen.
• Hulme, D. and Turner, M. (1990) Sociology and development: Theories, policies and practices, Harvester Wheatsheaf.
• Jacoby, T. (2004) Social power and the Turkish state, Routledge.
• Jessop, B. (1990) State theory, Polity Press.
• Jessop, B. (1991) State theory: putting capitalist states in their place, The Pennsylvania State University Press.
• Kaliber, A. (2014) Europeanization in Turkey: In search of a new paradigm of modernization, Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 16(1), 30-46.
• Keyman, E. F. (1994) Problematizing the State in International Relations Theory, in C. T. Sjolander and W. S. Cox (eds.) Beyond positivism: Critical reflections on international relations, Lynne Rienner, pp. 153-181.
• Keyman, E. F. (1997) Globalization, state, identity/difference: Toward a critical social theory of international relations, Humanities Press.
• Lapointe, T. and Dufour, F. G. (2012) Assessing the historical turn in IR: An anatomy of second wave historical sociology, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 25(1), 97-121.
• Lawson, G. (2007) Historical sociology in international relations: Open society, research programme and vocation, International Politics, 44, 343-368.
• Lawson, G. and Shilliam, R. (2010) Sociology and international relations: Legacies and prospects”, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 23(1), 69-86.
• Lerner, D. (1958) The passing of traditional society: Modernizing the Middle East, Free Press.
• Mann, M. (1986) The sources of social power, Cambridge University Press.
• Mann, M. (2004) Foreword, in T. Jacoby, Social power and the Turkish state, Routledge, pp. ix-xi.
• Manners, I. (2002) Normative power Europe: A contradiction in terms, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(2), 235-258.
• Migdal, J. S. (1997) Studying the state, in M. I. Lichbach and A. S. Zuckerman, (eds.), Comparative politics: Rationality, culture, and structure, Cambridge University Press, pp. 208-237.
• Morgenthau, H. (1985) Politics among nations, Knopf.
• Parsons, T. (1964) Evolutionary universals in society, American Sociological Review, 29(3), 339-341.
• Price, R. (2007) The chemical weapons taboo, Cornell University Press.
• Rosenberg, J. (1994) The empire of civil society, Verso.
• Rosenberg, J. (2007) International relations—the “higher” bullshit: A reply to the globalisation theory debate, International Politics, 44 (4), 450–482.
• Scholte, J. A. (1993) International relations of social change, Open University Press.
• Skocpol, T. (1979) States and revolutions, Cambridge University Press.
• Skocpol, T. (1994) Social revolutions in the modern world, Cambridge University Press.
• Skocpol, T. (1998) Vision and method in historical sociology, Cambridge University Press.
• Spruyt, H. (1994) The sovereign state and its competitors, Princeton University Press.
• Teschke, B. (2003) The myth of 1648: Class, geopolitics and the making of modern international relations, Verso.
• Tilly, C. (1990) Coercion, capital and European states AD 990-1990, Blackwell.
• Walker, R. B. J. (1986) The territorial state and the theme of Gulliver, International Journal, 39:, 529-552.
• Walker, R. B. J. (1987) Realism, change and international political theory”, International Studies Quarterly, 31, 65-86.
• Walker, R. B. J. (1993) Inside/outside: International relations as political theory, Cambridge University Press.
• Waltz, K. (1979) Theory of international politics, McGraw Hill.
• Yalvaç, F. (2013) Tarihsel sosyoloji ve uluslararası ilişkiler: Jeopolitik, kapitalizm ve devletler sistemi, Uluslararası İlişkiler, 10(38), 3-28.