NORBERT ELIAS VE KLASİK BİLGİ SOSYOLOJİSİ: BEKLENTİ VE SINIRLAR

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 21 Sayı: 2 , 493 - 516 , 26.06.2019

Anıl Mühürdaroğlu

https://doi.org/10.16953/deusosbil.425806

Cited By: 1

https://izlik.org/JA24UB33YS

Öz

Norbert Elias, döneminin sosyoloji anlayışının karşısında
yer almış, toplum ve birey arasındaki ilişkiyi ve toplumların değişme
süreçlerini kavrayabilmek için yeni bakış açıları ve kavramlar önermiştir. Daha
ziyade tarihsel sosyolojinin kurucu isimleri arasında adı anılan Elias bilgi
sosyolojisi üzerine de çalışmalar yapmış, kendi toplumsal değişme anlayışı ile
uyumlu bir çerçeveden toplumların düşünüş tarzlarının değişimine dair bir
yaklaşım geliştirmeye çalışmıştır. Elias bir ölçüde kariyerinin erken
dönemlerinde asistanlığını yaptığı Karl Mannheim’ın görüşlerinden etkilenmiş
olmakla birlikte Mannheim’ın kurucularından olduğu klasik bilgi sosyolojisi
anlayışından farklı bir yöne gitmiştir. Tarihsel bir bilgi sosyolojisi
geliştirmek yönünde önemli adımlar atmış olmasına rağmen bilim-öncesi düşünce
yapılarından bilimsel düşünceye geçişi değerlendirirken temel aldığı kıstaslar,
Elias’ın bu girişiminin sorunlu bir yönü olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Elias , Bilgi Sosyolojisi , Epistemoloji , Toplumsal Değişme , Figürasyonlar

NORBERT ELIAS AND THE CLASSICAL SOCIOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE: PROSPECTS AND LIMITS

https://izlik.org/JA24UB33YS

Öz

Norbert Elias had opposed the sociological views of his
time and offered new perspectives and concepts in order to develop a better
understanding of the relationship between the society and the individual and
the processes of social change. Although more widely known as one of the
founding names of historical sociology, Elias also worked on sociology of
knowledge and tried to develop a way of looking at the transformation of
societies’ styles of thought with reference to his wider conceptualization of
social change. Having been influenced from Karl Mannheim for whom he served as
an assistant in the early periods of his career, Elias successfully departed
from the school of classical sociology of knowledge one of whose founders was
Mannheim. Altough he took important steps towards establishing a historical
sociology of knowledge, the criteria which he employed for evaluating the
transition from non-scientific to scientific thinking stands as a shortcoming
which hindered the success of Elias’s attempt.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Elias , Sociology of Knowledge , Epistemology , Social Change , Figurations

Kaynakça

• Barnes, B. (1977). Interests and the growth of knowledge. Londra ve New York: Routledge.
• Barnes, B. (2004). Between the real and the reified: Elias on time. S. Loyal ve S. Quilley (Der.) The Sociology of Norbert Elias: İçinde 59-72. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Bloor, D. (1991) Knowledge and social imagery. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Buxton, W. ve Rehorick, W. (1988). The sociology of knowledge: Toward redemption of a failed promise”. The International Journal of Politics, 2 (1): 66-80.
• Child, A. (1941). The problem of imputation in the sociology of knowledge. Ethics, 51 (2): 200-219.
• De Gré, G. (1941). The sociology of knowledge and the problem of truth. Journal of History of Ideas, 2(1): 110-115.
• Eisenstadt, S. N. (1987). Classical sociology of knowledge and beyond. Minerva, 25 (1-2): 77-91.
• Elias, N. (1956). Problems of involvement and detachment. The British Journal of Sociology, 7 (3): 226-252.
• Elias, N. (1971a). Sociology of knowledge: New perspectives – Part one. Sociology, 5 (2): 149-168.
• Elias, N. (1971b). Sociology of knowledge: New perspectives – Part two. Sociology, 5 (3): 355-370.
• Elias, N. (1978). What is sociology? Çev. S. Mennel ve G. Morrissey. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Elias, N. (1983). The court society. Çev. E. Jephcott. New York: Pantheon Books.
• Elias, N. (1987a). The retreat of sociologists into the present. Theory, Culture & Society, 4 (2-3): 223-247.
• Elias, N. (1987b). Involvement and detachment. Çev. E. Jephcott. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
• Elias, N. (1997). Towards a theory of social process: A translation. British Journal of Sociology, 48 (3): 355-383.
• Elias, N. (2000a). The civilizing process. Çev. E. Jephcott. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
• Elias, N. (2000b). Mozart: Bir dahinin sosyolojisi üzerine. Çev. Y. Tükel. İstanbul: Kabalcı.
• Gurvitch, G. (1971). The social frameworks of knowledge. Çev. M. A. Thompson ve K. A. Thompson. New York: Harper & Row.
• Hamilton, P. (1974). Knowledge and social structure: An introduction to the classical argument in the sociology of knowledge. Routledge.
• Kilminster, R. (1993). Norbert Elias and Karl Mannheim: Closeness and distance. Theory, Culture & Society, 10 (3): 81-114.
• Kilminster, R. (2007). Norbert Elias: Post-philosophical sociology. Londra ve New York: Routledge.
• Kilminster, R. (2013). Norbert Elias and Karl Mannheim: Contrasting perspectives on the sociology of knowledge. F. Dépelteau ve T. S. Landini (Der.) Norbert Elias and social theory: İçinde 191-207. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Landini, T. S. (2013). Main principles of Elias’s sociology. F. Dépelteau ve T. S. Landini (Der.) Norbert Elias and social theory: İçinde 13-30. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Layder, D. (1986). Social reality as figuration: A critique of Elias’s conception of sociological analysis”. Sociology, 20 (3): 367-386.
• Loyal, S. (2004). Elias on class and stratification”. S. Loyal ve S. Quilley (Der.) The sociology of Norbert Elias: İçinde 122-141. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• McCarthy, E. D. (1996). Knowledge as culture: The new sociology of knowledge. Londra ve New York: Routledge.
• Mannheim, K. (1966). Ideology and utopia: An introduction to the sociology of knowledge. Çev. L. Wirth ve E. Shils. Londra: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Mannheim, K. (1990). Competition as a cultural phenomenon. V. Meja ve N. Stehr (Der.) Knowledge and politics: The sociology of knowledge dispute: İçinde 53-85. Londra ve New York: Routledge.
• Maquet, J. (1973). The sociology of knowledge: Its structure, and its relation to the philosophy of knowledge. Çev. J. F. Locke. Connecticut: Greenwood Press Publishers.
• Meja, V. ve Stehr, N. (1990). On the sociology of knowledge dispute. V. Meja ve N. Stehr (Der.) Knowledge and politics: The sociology of knowledge dispute: İçinde 3-13. Londra ve New York: Routledge.
• Mennell, S. (1992). Norbert Elias: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Rojek, C. (1986). Problems of involvement and detachment in the writings of Norbert Elias. The British Journal of Sociology, 37 (4): 584-596.
• Ross, D. (2003). Changing countours of the social science disciplines. T. M. Porter ve D. Ross (Der.) The Cambridge history of science, Vol. 7, The modern social sciences: İçinde 205-237. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Scheler, M. (1970). The sociology of knowledge: Formal problems. J. E. Curtis ve J. W. Petras (Der.) The Sociology of Knowledge: A Reader: İçinde 170-186. New York: Praeger Publishers.
• Scott, A. (1988). Imputing beliefs: A controversy in the sociology of knowledge. The Sociological Review, 36 (1): 31-56.
• Speier, H. (1970). The social determination of ideas. J. E. Curtis ve J. W. Petras (Der.) The Sociology of Knowledge: A Reader: İçinde 263-281. New York: Praeger Publishers.
• Vera, H. (2013). “Norbert Elias and Emile Durkheim: Seeds of a historical sociology of knowledge”. F. Dépelteau ve T. S. Landini (Der.) Norbert Elias and social theory: İçinde 127-141. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Yontar, E. (2000). Norbert Elias’ın insan bilimleri kavramı ve bilgi sosyolojisi. Toplum ve Bilim, 84: 112-128.
• Znaniecki, F. (1941). The social role of the man of knowledge. New York: Columbia University Press.