Kimlik-Güvenlik İlişkisini Anlamak: Toplumsal Kimlik, Sosyal Psikoloji ve Toplumlar-Arası Güvenlik İkilemi

Yıl 2020, , 189 - 215, 20.07.2020

Tuğçe Ersoy Ceylan , Tuncay Kardaş

https://doi.org/10.12995/bilig.9409

Cited By: 1

Öz

Soğuk Savaş ve 11 Eylül sonrası dönem, dünya siyasetinde ve Uluslararası İlişkiler disiplininde yeni tartışmaların ve yeni yaklaşımların yolunu açtığı gibi, Güvenlik Çalışmaları alanında da yeni arayışların ortaya çıkmasına sebep olmuştur. Bu çalışma, Kopenhag Okulu’nun güvenlik anlayışını genişleten ve derinleştiren yaklaşımı altında; uluslararası ilişkilerin en köklü kavramlarından olan güvenlik ikilemini, kimlik güvenliği perspektifinden ele almakta ve “toplumsal/toplumlar arası güvenlik ikilemi” kuramı ışığında yeniden değerlendirmektedir. Çalışmanın iki iddiası vardır. Birincisi, toplumlar arası çatışmayı anlamak bir bakıma kimlik dinamiklerini anlamak olduğundan, sosyal psikoloji disiplini alanına girilmesi kaçınılmazdır. Bu yüzden çalışma disiplinler arası bir yaklaşımla toplumsal güvenlik ikilemini çözümlemekte ve kimlik güvensizliğinin nasıl ortaya çıktığını bütüncül bir yaklaşımla irdelemektedir. İkincisi, bu çalışmaya göre Paul Roe tarafından geliştirilmiş olan toplumsal güvenlik ikileminin ortaya çıkma aşamalarında bir boşluk/geçişsizlik vardır. Mevcut çalışma, bu boşluğu sosyal psikoloji disiplininden bir kavram -cepheleşme- ile doldurmayı önermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Toplumlar-arası güvenlik ikilemi, grup kimliği, kopenhag okulu, sosyal psikoloji, güvenlikleştirme, çatışma ve cepheleşme

Understanding Identity-Security Nexus: Social Identity, Social Psychology and The Inter-Societal Security Dilemma

Öz

The post-Cold War and post-9/11 world politics opened promising new avenues of research, debates and approaches down which to travel. This article revisits one particular avenue; the Copenhagen School’s concept of societal security and re-evaluates one of the oldest concepts in security studies: the security dilemma in the context of identity-security nexus. The article has two claims. First, exploring social conflicts necessitates studying the dynamics of group identity and visiting the discipline of social psychology. By using such an interdisciplinary approach the article offers a better understanding of the dynamics of societal insecurity and insecure identities. In this context, it critically engages with Paul Roe’s theory of the inter-societal security dilemma. Secondly, the article argues that the inter-societal security dilemma approach has a gap in its fourfold analytical framework. To fill the gap, the present study employs an intervening variable, a new concept gleaned from social psychology, namely ‘confrontation’ to better explain why societies fight.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Inter-societal security dilemma, group identity, Copenhagen School, social psychology, securitization, conflict and confrontation

Kaynakça

• Abulof, Uriel (2009). “Small Peoples: The Existential Uncertainty of Ethnonational Communities”. International Studies Quarterly 53: 227-248.
• Aktürk, Şener (2012). Regimes of Ethnicity and Nationhood in Germany, Russia, and Turkey. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Azar, Edward (1990). The Management of Protracted Social Conflict: Theory and Cases. Aldershot: Dartmouth.
• Balci, Ali ve Tuncay Kardas (2012) “The Changing Dynamics of Turkey’s Relations with Israel: An Analysis of ’Securitization”. Insight Turkey 14 (2): 99-120.
• Balci, Ali (2017). Writing the World into Counter-Hegemony: Identity, Power, and ‘foreign policy’ in Ethnic Movements. International Relations 31 (4): 466-483.
• Bar-Tal, Daniel vd. (1989). Stereotyping and Prejudice. New York: Springer. Bar-Tal, Daniel (1990). “Causes and Consequences of Delegitimization: Models of Conflict and Ethnocentrism”. Journal of Social Issues 46: 65-81.
• Brewer, Marilyn B. (1991). “The Social Self: On Being the Same and Different at the Same Time”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17 (5): 475-482.
• Boulding, Kenneth (1969). “National Images and International Systems”. International Politics and Foreign Policy: A Reader in Research Theory. Ed. N. Rosenau. New York: Free Press.
• Buzan, Barry (1991). People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Studies in the Post-Cold War Era. Boulder: Lynnne Rienner.
• Buzan, Barry (1993). “Societal Security, State Security and Internationalization”. Identity, Migration and the New Security Agendas in Europe. London: Pinter.
• Buzan, Barry, Ole Waever ve Jaap de Wilde (1998). Security: A New Framework for Analysis. London: Lynne Reinner.
• Buzan, Barry ve Lene Hansen (2009). The Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Campbell, Donald (1965. “Ethnocentric and Other Altruistic Motives”. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Ed. D. Levine. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
• Cohen, Raymond (1978). “Threat Perception in International Crisis”. Political Science Quarterly 93 (1): 93-107.
• Deutsch, Morton (1973). The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. London: Yale University Press.
• Ersoy, Tuğçe (2018) “İsrailli Olmak: Kolektif Bir Kimlik Geliştirmenin Zorlukları”. Türkiye Ortadoğu Çalışmaları Dergisi 5 (1): 73-100.
• Ersoy Ceylan, Tuğçe (2019). “19. Yüzyıl Sonunda Filistin’de Arap-Yahudi Karşılaşmasının Bir İncelemesi: Komşudan Hasıma Dönüşümün Tarihsel Sosyolojisi”. Journal of Islamicjerusalem Studies 19 (3): 293-316.
• Fisher, Ronald J. (1990). The Social Psychology of Intergroup and International Conflict Resolution. New York: Springer-Verlag.
• Gross Stein, Janice (2013). “Threat Perception in International Relations”. The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Ed. Leonie Huddy, David O. Sears and Jack S. Levy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Huysmans, Jef (1998). “The Question of Limit: Desecuritization and the Aesthetics of Horror in Political Realism”. Millenium: Journal of International Studies 27 (3): 569- 589.
• Huysmans, Jef (1998). “Security! What do you mean? From concept to thick signifier”. European journal of international relations 4 (2): 226-255.
• Kardaş, Tuncay (2007) “Güvenlik: Kimin Güvenliği ve Nasıl?”. Uluslararası Politikayı Anlamak:‘Ulus-Devlet’ten Küreselleşmeye. Der. Zeynep Dagı. İstanbul: Alfa Yay.
• Kardaş, Tuncay (2012) “No Laughing Matter: Visualizing Turkey’s Ergenekon in Political Cartoons”. Middle East Critique 21 (2): 203-223.
• Kardaş, Tuncay ve Ali Balci (2016) “Inter-societal Security Trilemma in Turkey: Understanding the Failure of the 2009 Kurdish Opening”. Turkish Studies 17 (1): 155-180.
• Kardaş, Tuncay ve Murat Yesiltaş (2017) “Rethinking Kurdish Geopolitical Space: the Politics of Image, Insecurity and Gender”. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 30 (2-3): 256-282.
• Kardas, Tuncay ve Ali Balci (2019) “Understanding the July 2016 Coup: The Contemporary Security Dilermma in Turkey”. Digest of Middle Eastern Studies 28 (1): 144-163.
• Korostelina, Karina V. (2007). Social Identity and Conflict: Structures, Dynamics and Implications. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
• Leonardelli, Geoffrey J. vd (2010). “Optimal Distinctiveness Theory: A Framework for Social Identity and Intergroup Relations”. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 43: 63-113.
• McSweeny, Bill (2004). Security, Identity, Interests: A Sociology of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Miş, Nebi (2011). “Güvenlikleştirme Teorisi ve Siyasal Olanın Güvenlikleştirilmesi”. Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi 6 (2): 345-381.
• Peoples Columba ve Nick Vaughan-Williams (2010). Critical Security Studies: An Introduction. London: Routledge.
• Roe, Paul (2005). Ethnic Violence and Societal Security Dilemma. London: Routledge.
• Roe, Paul (1999). “The Intrastate Security Dilemma: Ethnic Conflict as A Tragedy?”. Journal of Peace Research 36 (2): 183-202.
• Roe, Paul (2002).“Misperception and Ethnic Conflict: Transylvania’s Societal Security Dilemma”. Review of International Studies 28: 57-74.
• Rumelili, Bahar (2015) “Identity and Desecuritisation: the Pitfalls of Conflating Ontological and Physical Security”. Journal of International Relations and Development 18 (1): 52-74.
• Spears, Russell (2011). “Group Identities: The Social Identity Perspective”. Handbook of Identity Theory and Research. Ed. S. J. Schwartz vd. London: Springer.
• Stephan, Walter S. ve Cookie Stephan (2000). “An Integrated Threat Theory of Prejudice”. Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination. Ed. S. Oskamp. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Tajfel, Henri ve John C. Turner (1979). “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict”. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Ed. W. G. Austin ve S. Worchel. Belmont: Brooks.
• Tajfel, Henri ve John C. Turner (1979). “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior”. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Ed. W. G. Austin and S. Worchel. Belmont: Brooks.
• Tang, Shiping (2008). “Fear in International Politics: Two Positions”. International Studies Review 10: 451-471.
• Theiler, Tobias (2003). “Societal Security and Social Psychology”. Review of International Studies 29 (2): 249-268.
• Turner, John C. et al. (1987). Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self Categorization Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Van Rythoven, Eric (2015). “Learning to Feel, Learning to Fear? Emotions, Imaginaries and Limits in the Politics of Securitization”. Security Dialogue 46 (5): 458-475.
• Waever, Ole vd. (1993). Identity, Migration and the New Security Agendas in Europe. London: Pinter.
• Waever, Ole vd. (1993). “Societal Security: The Concept”. Identity, Migration and the New Security Agendas in Europe. London: Pinter.
• Waever, Ole vd. (1995). “Securitization and Desecuritization”. On Security. Ed. Ronnie Lipshutz. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Waever, Ole vd. (1996). “European Security Identities”. Journal of Common Market Studies 34 (1): 103-132.
• Warning, Martina ve Tuncay Kardaş (2011) “The Impact of Changing Islamic Identity in Turkeys New Foreign Policy”. Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations 10 (2-3): 123-140.
• Williams, Michael (2003). “Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics”. International Studies Quarterly 47: 511-531.
• Williams, Michael (1998). “Modernity, Identity and Security: A Comment on the Copenhagen Controversy”. Review of International Studies 24: 435.
• Zur, Ofer (1991). “The Love of Hating: The Psychology of Enmity”. History of European Ideas 13 (4): 345-369.