ULUSLARARASI İLİŞKİLER KURAMINDA ‘KONSTRÜKTİVİST DÖNÜŞÜ’ ANLAMAK

Öz

Uluslararası İlişkiler kuramında 1990’lı yılların ‘konstrüktivist dönüşü’ temsil etmesi bir yandan Soğuk Savaş’ın sona ermesiyle birlikte kimlik, kültür ve normlar gibi düşünsel ve toplumsal ögelerin uluslararası politikada canlanmasına ve uluslararası ilişkiler çalışmalarında giderek önem kazanmasına, diğer yandan anaakım kuramsal yaklaşımlara yöneltilen ciddi eleştirilerle birlikte disiplinde yeni yaklaşımların izlenebileceği bir alanın açılmış olmasına bağlıdır. Sosyal konstrüktivist yaklaşımların uluslararası ilişkilerin özellikle toplumsal niteliğine yaptığı vurgu ile disiplinde pozitivist yaklaşımlar ile post-pozitivist yaklaşımlar arasında bir ‘orta yolu’ temsil veya ‘inşa’ ettiği iddiası bu yaklaşımların Uluslararası İlişkiler kuramında merkezi bir konum edinmiş olmasında etkili olmuştur. Bu bağlamda sosyal konstrüktivizm rasyonalist kuramsal yaklaşımları eleştirmekle birlikte, postmodernist ve post-yapısalcı rölativizmi reddeden ve ampirik çalışmaları ile bir sosyal bilim olarak gördükleri Uluslararası İlişkiler disiplinine katkıda bulunmak isteyenlere ev sahipliği yapar

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Uluslararası İlişkiler kuramı, konstrüktivizm, rasyonalizm

MAKING SENSE OF ‘CONSTRUCTIVIST TURN’ IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY

Öz

That ‘constructivist turn’ characterized International Relations theory in the 1990s was due to, on the one hand, the resurgence in international politics of such ideational and societal factors as identity, culture, and norms with the end of the Cold War and their incresing importance in the study of international relations, and on the other hand, the opening up space in the discipline in which new approaches can be entertained thanks to profound critics against mainstream approaches. The fact that social constructivist approaches put emphasis on the social makeup of international relations and that they compellingly claimed that they represented or ‘constructed’ a ‘middle ground’ between positivist and post-positivist approaches in the discipline was critical in the way they occupied a central place in International Relations theory. Even if social constructivism advanced critics of rationalist theoretical approaches, it was home to only those who refuted post-modernist and post-structuralist relativism and wished to contribute with their empirical research to the discipline of International Relations, which they regard as a social science

Anahtar Kelimeler

• International Relations theory, constructivism, rationalism

Kaynakça

1. Adler, E. (1992): “The Emergence of Cooperation: National Epistemic Communities and the International Evolution of the Idea of Nuclear Arms Control”, International Organization, 46(1): 101-146.
2. Adler, E. (2002): “Constructivism and International Relations”, Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse ve Beth A. Simmons (der.), Handbook of International Relations, London: Sage.
3. Adler, E., ve Barnett, M., der., (1998): Security Communities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Adler, E., ve Haas, P. M. (1992): “Conclusion: Epistemic Communities, World Order, and the Creation of a Reflective Research Program”, International Organization, 46(1): 367-390.
5. Ashley, R. (1986): “The Poverty of Neorealism”, Robert Keohane (der.), Neoralism and Its Critics, New York: Columbia University Press.
6. Ashley, R. (1987): “The Geopolitics of Geopolitical Space: Toward a Critical Social Theory of International Politics”, Alternatives, 12(4): 403-34.
7. Berger, P. L., ve Luckmann, T. (1966): The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, New York: Anchor Books.
8. Bhaskar, R. (1979): The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences, Hassocks : Harvester Press.

9. Bhaskar, R. (1986): Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation, London: Verso.
10. Blumer, H. (1969): Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method, Berkeley: University of California Press.
11. Bull, H. (1977): The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, London: Macmillan.
12. Bull, H. ve Watson, A., der., (1984): The Expansion of International Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13. Campbell, D. (1998): Writing Security: The United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
14. Carlsnaes, W. (1992): “The Agency-Structure Problem in Foreign Policy Analysis”, International Studies Quarterly, 36(3): 245-270.
15. Checkel, J. T. (1998) “The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory,” World Politics, 50:324-348.
16. Collin, F. (1997): Social Reality. London: Routledge.
17. Cox, R. (1986): “Social Forces, States, and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory”, Robert Keohane (der.), Neorealism and Its Critics, New York: Columbia University Press.
18. Dessler, D. (1989): “What’s at Stake in the Agent-Structure Debate?”, International Organization, 43(4): 441-473.
19. Delanty, G. (1997): Social Science: Beyond Constructivism and Realism, Buckingham: Open University Press.
20. DiMaggio, P. ve Powell, W., der., (1991): The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21. Dunne, T. (1995) “The Social Construction of International Society”, European Journal of International Relations, 1(3): 367-389.
22. Farrell, T. (1998): “Culture and Military Power”, Review of International Studies, 24(3): 402-422.
23. Fearon, J. ve Wendt, A. (2002): “Rationalism v. Constructivism: A Skeptical View”, Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse ve Beth A. Simmons (der.), Handbook of International Relations, London: Sage.
24. Finnemore, M. (1996a): “Norms, Culture and World Politics: Insights From Sociology's Institutionalism”, International Organization, 50(2): 325-347.
25. Finnemore, M. (1996b): National Interests in International Society, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
26. Finnemore, M. ve Sikkink, K. (1998): “International Norms Dynamics and Political Change”, International Organization, 52(4): 887-917.
27. George, J. (1994): Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations, Boulder, Co.: Lynne Rienner.
28. Giddens, A. (1979): Central Problems in Social Theory, London : Macmillan.
29. Giddens, A. (1984): The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Cambridge: Polity Press.
30. Goldstein, J. ve Keohane, R. O., der., (1993): Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
31. Guzzini, S. (2000): “A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations”, European Journal of International Relations, 6(2): 147-182.
32. Haas, P. M. (1992): “Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination”, International Organization, 46(1): 1-36.
33. Habermas, J. (1984): The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Boston: Beacon Press.
34. Hansclever, A., Mayer, P., ve Volker Rittberger, V. (2000): “Integrating Theories of International Regimes”, Review of International Studies, 26(1): 3-33.
35. Hollis, M. ve Smith, S. (1990): Explaining and Understanding International Relations, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
36. Hopf, T. (1998): “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory”, International Security, 23(1): 171-200.
37. Katzenstein, P. J., der., (1996): The Culture of National Security: Norrms and Identity in World Politics, New York: Columbia University Press.
38. Katzenstein, P. J., Keohane, R. O., ve Krasner, S. D. (1998): “International Organization and the Study of World Politics”, International Organization, 52(4): 645-685.
39. Keck, M. ve Sikkink, K. (1998): Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
40. Keohane, R. (1988): “International Institutions: Two Approaches”, International Studies Quarterly, 32(4): 379-396.
41. Keohane, R. O. (1989): “International Relations Theory: Contributions of a Feminist Standpoint”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 18(2): 245- 254.
42. Klotz, A. (1995): Norms in International Relations: The Struggle against Apartheid, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
43. Koslowski, R. ve Kratochwil, F. (1994): “Understanding Change in International Politics: The Soviet Empire’s Demise and the International System”, International Organization, 48(2): 215-247.
44. Krasner, S. D. (1983): “Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables”, Stephen D. Krasner (der.), International Regimes, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
45. Kratochwil, F. (1989): Rules, Norms, and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46. Kratochwil, (1993): “The Embarrassment of Changes: Neo-realism as the Science of Realpolitik without Politics”, Review of International Studies, 19(1): 63-80.
47. Kratochwil, F. ve Ruggie, J. G. (1986): “International Organization: A State of the Art on an Art of the State”, International Organization, 40(4): 753-775.
48. Laffey, M., ve Weldes, J. (1997): “Beyond Belief: Ideas and Symbolic Technologies in the Study of International Relations”, European Journal of International Relations, 3(2): 193-237.
49. Lapid, Y. ve Kratochwil, F. (1996): The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory, Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner.
50. March, J. G., ve Olsen, J. P. (1998): “The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders”, International Organization, 52(4): 943-969.
51. Mead, G. H. (1934): Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist, Charles W. Morris’in derlemesi ve önsözü ile, Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
52. Mearsheimer, J. (1994 / 1995): “The False Promise of International Institutions”, International Security, 19(3): 5-49.
53. Meyer, J., Boli, J., Thomas, G. M., ve Ramirez, F. O. (1997): “World Society and the Nation-State”, American Journal of Sociology, 103(1): 144-181.
54. Ned-Lebow, R., ve Risse-Kappen, T., der., (1995): International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War, New York: Columbia University Press.
55. Neufeld, M. (1993): “Interpretation and the Science of International Relations”, Review of International Studies, 19(1): 39-62.
56. Onuf, N. (1989): World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations, Columbia, SC.: University of South Caroline Press.
57. Price, R., ve Reus-Smit, C. (1998): “Dangerous Liasons? Critical International Theory and Constructivism”, European Journal of International Relations, 4(3):259-294.
58. Reus-Smit, C. (1997): “The Constitutional Structure of International Society and the Nature of Fundamental Institutions”, International Organization, 51(4): 555- 590.
59. Risse, T. , Ropp, S. ve Sikkink, K., der., (1999): The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
60. Ruggie, J. G. (1986): “Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Towards a Neorealist Synthesis”, Robert O. Keohane (der.), Neoralism and Its Critics, New York: Columbia University Press.
61. Ruggie, J. G. (1998): “What Makes the World Hang Together? NeoUtilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge”, International Organization, 52(4): 855-885.
62. Schutz, A. (1932): The Phenomenology of the Social World, London: Heinemann.
63. Searle, J. R. (1995): The Construction of Social Reality, New York: Free Press.
64. Smith, S. (1995): “The Self-Images of A Discipline: A Genealogy of International Relations Theory”, Ken Booth ve Steve Smith (der.), International Relations Theory Today, Cambridge: Polity Press.
65. Waever, O. (1996): “The Rise and Fall of the Inter-Paradigm Debate”, Steve Smith, Ken Booth ve Marysia Zalewski (der.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
66. Walt, S. (1998): “International Relations: One World, Many Theories”, Foreign Policy, 110: 29-46.
67. Waltz, K. (1979): Theory of International Politics, Reading: Addison-Wesley.
68. Weber, C. (1994): “Good Girls, Little Girls, and Bad Girls: Male Paranoia in Robert Keohane’s Critique of Feminist International Relations”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 23(2): 337-349.
69. Weldes, J. (1999): Constructing National Interests: The United States and the Cuban Missile Crisis, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
70. Wendt, A. (1987): “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory”, International Organization, 41(3): 335-370.
71. Wendt, A. (1992) “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics”, International Organization, 46(2): 391–425.
72. Wendt, A. (1994): “Collective Identity Formation and the International State”, American Political Science Review, 88(2): 384-396.
73. Wendt, A. (1995): “Constructing International Politics”, International Security, 20(1): 71-80.
74. Wendt, A. (1998): “On Constitution and Causation in International Relations”, Review of International Studies, 24(Özel Sayı): 101-117.
75. Wendt, A. (1999): Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
76. Wendt, A. ve Duvall, R. (1989): “Institutions and International Order”, Ernst-Otto Czempiel ve James Rosenau (der.), Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges: Approches to World Politics for the 1990s, Lexington: Lexington Books.
77. Wittgenstein, L. (1958): Philosophical Investigations, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.