The ‘Political’ Role of Social Movements: A Critical Review of Rationalist Approaches

Yıl 2013, Cilt: 68 Sayı: 03, 37 - 61, 01.03.2013

Hayriye Özen

https://doi.org/10.1501/SBFder_0000002286

Öz

The rationalist social movement approaches, which have been dominant in social movement literature, are curiously silent concerning how social movements transform existing social structures. This study contends that the silence of rationalist approaches on that issue is related with the failure of these approaches to conceptualize the ‘political’ role of social movements. It, first, outlines the conceptual distinction made by Claude Lefort, Chantal Mouffe, and Ernesto Laclau between ‘the political’ and ‘the politics’, and by Jacques Ranciére between ‘the politics’ and ‘the police’, in order to differentiate the moment of the institution of the social from the institutionalized politics. Then, examining rationalist approaches by drawing on this distinction, it argues that these approaches confine social movements within the boundaries of the conventional politics, ignoring the political role that movements can play. As such, they fail to conceptualize how movements challenge and transform existing social structures. The study concludes by pointing out the analytical and political effects of this conceptual weakness of rationalist approaches.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Social Movements, Rationalist Approaches, the Politics, the Political, Structural Change

Toplumsal Hareketlerin 'Siyasal' Rolü: Rasyonalist Yaklaşımların Eleştirel Bir Değerlendirmesi

Öz

Toplumsal hareketler yazınında son yıllarda hâkim bir konum edinerek pek çok toplumsal hareket analizine yön veren rasyonalist yaklaşımlar, toplumsal hareketlerin mevcut toplumsal yapıları nasıl değiştirdiği veya değiştirebileceği konusunda dikkate değer bir suskunluk sergilerler. Bu çalışma rasyonalist yaklaşımların bu suskunluğunun toplumsal hareketlerin ‘siyasal’ rollerini kavramsallaştıramamaları ile ilgili olduğunu tartışıyor. Çalışmada öncelikle, çağdaş siyasi düşüncede toplumsalı değiştirip dönüştüren moment ile kurumsallaşmış siyasi pratikler arasında kavramsal bir ayrım yapmak üzere Claude Lefort, Chantal Mouffe ve Ernesto Laclau tarafından kullanılan ‘siyasal’ ve ‘siyaset’ kavramları ile Jacques Ranciére tarafından kullanılan ‘siyaset’ ve ‘polis’ kavramları ele alınmaktadır. Rasyonalist toplumsal hareket yaklaşımlarının bu ayrım ekseninde incelendiği ikinci bölümde ise bu yaklaşımların toplumsal hareketleri tamamen kurumsal siyasetin alanına hapsederek siyasal rollerini göz ardı ettikleri ve böylece toplumsal yapıları nasıl değiştirip dönüştüreceklerini kavramsallaştırmakta oldukça yetersiz kaldıkları gösterilmektedir. Çalışma rasyonalist yaklaşımların bu yetersizliğinin çeşitli analitik sorunlar doğurmanın yanı sıra önemli siyasi sonuçları olduğuna da dikkat çekerek sonlanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Toplu Toplumsal Hareketler, Rasyonalist Yaklaşımlar, Siyaset, Siyasal, Yapısal Değişim

Kaynakça

• American Ethnologist (2012) Occupy Movements: AE Forum American Ethnologist 39 (2), http://www.americanethnologist.org/archives/volume-39-issue-2-may-2012 (29.12.2012). Badiou, Alain (2005), Metapolitics (Londra: Verso).
• Berkeley Journal of Sociology (2012) Understanding the Occupy Movement, Berkeley Journal of Sociology, http://bjsonline.org/category/occupy (28. 11. 2012)
• Berman, Bruce J. (1991), “Nationalism, Ethnicity, and Modernity: The Paradox of Mau Mau,” Canadian Journal of African Studies / Revue Canadienne des Études Africaines, 25 (2): 181-20
• Blumer, Herbert (1955), “Social Movements,” A. McClung Lee (der.), A New Outline of the Principles of Sociology (New York: Barnes & Noble): 167- 219.
• Bourdieu, Pierre (1998). Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action (Stanford: Stanford university Press).
• Burstein, Paul, Rachel L. Einwohner ve Jocelyn A. Hollander (1995), “The Success of Political Movements: A Bargaining Perspective,” J. Craig Jenkins ve Bert Klandermans (ders.), The Politics of Social Protest: Comparative Perspectives on States and Social Movements (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press): 275- 295.
• Byrne, Janet (der.) (2012), The Occupy Handbook (London: Back Bay).
• Byrne, Mick, Patrick Bresnihan ve Richard McAleavey (2011), Crisis and Revolution in Europe (Madrid: Observatorio Metropolitano of Madrid).
• Calhoun, Craig (2011), “Evicting the Public: Why has occupying public spaces brought such heavyhanded repression?” Possible Futures: A Project of the Social Science Research Council. http://www.possible-futures.org/2011/11/19/evicting-the-public-why-hasoccupying-public-spaces-brought-such-heavy-handed-repression (18.10.2012).
• Castoriadis, Cornelius (1991), “Power, Politics, Autonomy,” David Ames Curtis (der.) Philosophy, Politics, Autonomy (New York ve Oxford: Oxford University Press): 143-174.
• Chomsky, Noam (2012), Occupy (London: Penguin).
• Cohen, Jean L. (1985), “Strategy and Identity: New Theoretical Pardigms and Contemporary Social Movements,” Social Research 52: 663-716.
• Crossley, Nick (2002), Making Sense of Social Movements (Buckingham: Open University Press). Delclós, Carlos ve Raimundo Viejo (2012), ”Beyond the Indignation: Spain's Indignado's and the Political Agenda,” Policy & Practice: A Development Education Review 15: 92-100.
• Della Porta, Donatella ve Mario Diani (1999), Social Movements: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell).
• Eisinger, Peter K. (1973), “The Conditions of Protest Behavior in American Cities,” American Political Science Review, 67: 11-28.
• Elster, Jon (1986), "Introduction," Jon Elster (der.) Rational Choice (Oxford:.Basil Blackwell).
• Eyerman, Ron ve Andrew Jamison (1991), Social Movements: A Cognitive Approach (Cambridge: Polity Press).
• Gamson, William (1990), The Strategy of Social Protest (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth).
• Gamson, William (1992), Talking Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
• Gamson, William, Bruce Fireman, and Steven Rytina (1982), Encounters with Unjust Authority (Homewood: Dorsey Press).
• Garner, Roberta Ash (1996), Contemporary Movements and Ideologies (New York: McGraw- Hill). Gessen, K., Astra, Taylor, Eli Schmitt, Nikil Saval, Sarah Resnick, Sarah Leonard, Mark Greif, ve Carla Blumenkranz (Der.) (2011), Occupy!: Scenes from Occupied America (London: Verso)
• Gillham, Patrick F, Bob Edwards ve John A. Noakes (2013), “Strategic incapacitation and the policing of Occupy Wall Street protests in New York City 2011,” Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy, 23 (1): 81-102.
• Giugni, Marco (1998), “Was It Worth Effort? The Outcomes and Consequences of Social Movements,” Annual Review of Sociology, 24: 371-393.
• Giugni, Marco (1999), “How Social Movements Matter: Past Research, Present problems, Future Developments,” Marco Giugni, Doug McAdam ve Charles Tilly (der.) How Social Movements Matter (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).
• Goodwin, Jeff ve James Jasper (2003), “What do Movements do: Introduction,” Jeff Goodwin ve James Jasper (der.) The Social Movements Reader: Cases and Concepts (Oxford: Blackwell).
• Hindess, Barry (1998), Choice, Rationality and Social Choice (London: Unwin Hyman).
• Jenkins, J. Craig ve Charles Perrow (1977), “Insurgency of the Powerless: The Farm Worker Movements 1946- 1972,” American Sociological Review 42: 249-68.
• Jenkins, J. Craig ve William Form (2005), “Social Movements and Social Change,” Thomas Janoski,.Robert Alford, Alexander Hicks ve Mildred Schwartz (der.) The Handbook of Political Sociology: states, civil societies, and globalization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 331- 349.
• Laclau, Ernesto (1990), New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time (London: Verso).
• Laclau, Ernesto (1999), “Politics, Polemics and Academics: An Interview by Paul Bowman,” Parallax, 5(2): 93-107.
• Laclau, Ernesto (2005), On Populist Reason (London: Verso).
• Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe (1990), “Post-Marxism without Apologies,” Ernesto Laclau, New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time (London: Verso).
• Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe (1985), Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics (London: Verso).
• Lacoue-Labarthe, Phillipe ve Jean-Luc Nancy (1997) Retreating the Political, Simon Sparks (der.)(Londra ve New York: Routledge).
• Lefort, Claude (1988), Democracy and Political Theory (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).
• Levi, Margaret (1997), “A Model, a Method, and a Map: Rational Choice in Comparative and Historical Analysis,” Marc Irving Lichbach ve Alan S. Zuckerman (der.) Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
• Marchart, Oliver (2007), Post-Foundational Political Thought: Political Difference in Nancy, Lefort, Badiou and Laclau (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).
• McAdam, Doug (1982), Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency 1930-1970 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
• McAdam, Doug, John McCarthy ve Mayer Zald (1996b), “Introduction:Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Framing Processes-Toward a Synthetic, Comparative Perspective on Social Movements,” Doug McAdam, John McCarthy ve Mayer Zald (der.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
• McAdam, Doug, Sidney Tarrow ve Charles Tilly (1996a), “Towards An Integrated Perspective on Social Movements and Revolution,” Working Papers Lazasfeld Center at Columbia University.
• McAdam, Doug, Sidney Tarrow ve Charles Tilly (2001), Dynamics of Contention (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
• McCarthy, John ve Mayer Zald (1977), “Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory,” American Journal of Sociology, 82: 1212-1241.
• Melucci, Alberto (1985), “The Symbolic Challenge of Contemporary Movements,” Social Research 52(4): 789-816.
• Melucci, Alberto (1996), Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the Information Age (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
• Meyer, David S., Nancy Whittier ve Belinda Robnett (2002), Social Movements: Identity, Culture, and the State (New York: Oxford University Press).
• Mobilization (2002), Karşılaştırmalı Çevreci Kampanyalar üzerine Özel Sayı. Mobilization 7(1).
• Morell, Mayo Fuster (2012), “The Free Culture and 15M Movements in Spain: Composition, Social Networks and Synergies,” Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest, 11(3-4): 386-392.
• Morris, Aldon (2000), “Reflections on Social Movement Theory: Criticisms and Proposals,” Contemporary Sociology 29(3): 445-454.
• Morris, Aldon ve Carol Mueller (1992), Frontiers in Social Movement Theory (New Haven: Yale University Pres).
• Mouffe, Chantal (2005), On the Political (London and New York: Routledge).
• Oberschall, Anthony (1973), Social Conflict and Social Movements (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).
• Olson, Mancur (1965), The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
• Petracca, Mark P. (1991), “The Rational Choice Approach to Politics: A Challenge to Democratic Theory,” The Review of Politics, 53 (2): 289-319.
• Pickerill, Jeny ve John Krinsky (2012), “Why Does Occupy Matter?” Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest, 11(3-4): 279-287.
• Piven, Frances Fox ve Richard A. Cloward (1977), Poor People’s Movement (New York: Pantheon).
• Ranciére, Jacques (1999), Disagreement: Politics And Philosophy (Minneapolis ve Londra: University of Minnesota Press).
• Ranciére, Jacques (2000), “Dissenting Words: A Conversation with Jacques Rancière,” Davide Panagia, Diacritics 30(2): 113-126.
• Ranciére, Jacques (2004), “Introducing Disagreement,” Angelaki: journal of the theoretical humanities 9 (3): 3-9.
• Rancière, Jacques (2007), On the Shores of Politics (Londra: Verso).
• Ricci, David M. (1984), The Tragedy of Political Science (New Haven: Yale University Press).
• Smelser, Neil (1962), Theory of Collective Behavior (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul).
• Snow, David A. ve Robert D. Benford (1988), “Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization,” International Social Movement Research 1: 197-217.
• Snow, David A. ve Robert D. Benford (1992), “Master Frames and Cycles of Protest,” in Aldon Morris ve Carol McClurg Mueller (der.) Frontiers in Social Movement Theory (New Haven: Yale University Press): 133-55.
• Snow, David A., E. Burke Rochford, Steven K. Worden ve Robert D. Benford (1986), “Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation,” American Sociological Review, 51: 456-81.
• Social Movement Studies (2012), Special Issue: Occupy, Social Movement Studies 11(3-4).
• Society and Space (2012) Forum on the ‘Occupy’ movement, Society and Space—Environment and Planning D, http://societyandspace.com/2011/11/18/forum-on-the-occupy-movement ( 2012).
• Taibo, Carlos (2013), “The Spanish indignados: A movement with two souls,” European Urban and Regional Studies 20 (1): 155-158.
• Tarrow, Sidney (1988), “National Politics and Collective Action: Recent Theory and Research in Western Europe and the United States,” Annual Review of Sociology, 14: 421-40.
• Tarrow, Sidney (1998), Power in Movement: Social Movement and Contentious Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
• Theory and Event (2011), Supplement 14 (4), http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/toc/ tae.4S.html (01. 04. 2013).
• Tilly, Charles (1978), From Mobilization to Revolution (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).
• Touraine, Alain (1985), “An Introduction to the Study of Social Movements,” Social Research 52(4): 749-8