Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

AMERİKAN HEGEMONYASI SAVUNUSU DOĞRULTUSUNDA SAMUEL HUNTİNGTON’DA SİYASAL DÜZEN TEORİSİ

Yıl 2021, Sayı: 59, 35 - 58, 31.08.2021
https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.865404

Öz

Dünyada bir düzen vardır. Dünya düzeni siyasal düzenin bir parçasıdır. Siyaset biliminde
düzene ilişkin teorilerin çatı kavramı olan siyasal düzen teorisi, dünya düzeninin ardındaki temel
teoridir. Aynı zamanda siyasal düzen teorisi dünya siyasetinin bütüncül bir şekilde anlaşılması için
önemli bakış açısı sunar. Siyasal düzen teorisinin bu kadar önemli olmasının nedeni, siyasal yapıların
hâkim bir anlayış doğrultusunda gelişen bir siyasal düzen içerisinde var olduğu gerçeğidir. Siyasal
düzen teorisi konusunda en kapsamlı bilimsel açıklamaları Samuel P. Huntington yapmıştır. Samuel
Huntington 20. yüzyılın en önemli siyasal düşünürleri ve siyaset bilimcileri arasındadır. Siyasal düzen
teorisinin ve Huntington’un bu önemine karşın, Huntington’da siyasal düzen teorisi literatürde
yeterince açıklanmamıştır. Bu makalenin amacı, Samuel Huntington’un siyasal teorilerinin ve
özellikle de siyasal düzen teorisinin bütüncül ve bilimsel bir şekilde açıklanmasına katkı sunmaktır.
Bu doğrultuda yapılacak bir inceleme siyasal düzen olgusu ile teorisi arasındaki ilişkiyi ortaya
koymayı da hedeflemektedir. Huntington’un siyasal düzen teorisi Amerikan hegemonyası
savunusunun bir parçasıdır. Huntington yeni dünya düzeni döneminin teorisyenleri arasında yer alır.
Bu doğrultuda, bu makale Amerikan hegemonyası savunucularının önemli tezlerini de
açıklamaktadır. Huntington’un siyasal düzen teorisi dört başlıkta ele alınabilir: kurumsallaşma, ulusal
siyasal düzenin unsurları, değişim karşısında siyasal düzen ve yeni dünya düzeni teorisi. Siyasal
partiler, siyasal katılma ve siyasal kültür Huntington’a göre, ulusal siyasal düzenin temel unsurlarıdır.
Sonuçta, Huntington’un siyasal düzen teorisi, dünyada devam eden siyasal düzen olgusunun ardında
önemli bir teorik zemin olarak durmaktadır.

Kaynakça

  • Almond, G. A. and Powell, G. B. (1966). Comparative politics: a developmental approach. Boston: Little Brown.
  • Almond, G. A. and Verba, S. (1989). The civic culture: political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
  • Brinton, C. (1965). The anatomy of revolution. New York: Vintage Books.
  • Cox, R. W. (1987). Production power and world order: social forces in the making of history. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Deutsch, K. W. (1961). Social mobilization and political development. American Political Science Review, 55(3), 493-514.
  • Eisenstadt, S. N. (1962). Initial institutional patterns of political modernization. Civilizations, 12(4), 461-474.
  • Eisenstadt, S. N. (1964). Institutionalization and change. American Sociological Review, 29(2), 235-247.
  • Eisenstadt, S. N. (1981). Cultural traditions and political dynamics: the origins and modes of ideological politics. The British Journal of Sociology, 32(2), 155-181.
  • Fukuyama, F. (2015). Political order and political decay. London: Profile Books. Goldberg, R. A. (2004). Who profited from the crime? Intelligence failure, conspiracy theories and the case of September 11. Intelligence and National Security, 19(2), 249-261. Gross, F. (1958). The seizure of political power. New York: Philosophical Library.
  • Huntington, S. P. (1965). Political development and political decay. World Politics, 17(3), 386-430.
  • Huntington, S. P. (1968). Political order in changing societies. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Huntington, S. P ve Dominguez, J. I. (1975). Siyasal gelişme (Çev. E. Özbudun). Ankara: Siyasal İlimler Derneği Yayımları.
  • Huntington, S. P. (1991). How countries democratize. Political Science Quarterly, 106(4), 579-616.
  • Huntington, S. P. (1993a). The clash of civilizations?. Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 22-49.
  • Huntington, S. P. (1993b). if not civilizations, what? Paradigms of the post-cold war world, Foreign Affairs, 72(5), 186-194.
  • Huntington, S. P. (1999). The lonely superpower. Foreign Affairs, 78(2), 35-49.
  • Huntington, S. P. (2011). Üçüncü dalga: geç 20. yüzyılda demokratikleşme (Çev. E. Özbudun). Ankara: Kilit Yayınları.
  • Ikenberry, J. (2011). Liberal leviathan. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  • Kornhauser, W. (1959). Politics of mass society. New York: The Free Press.
  • Kristol, W. and Kagan, R. (1996). Toward a neo-reaganite foreign policy. Foreign Affairs, 75(4), 18-32.
  • LaPalombara, J. and Weiner, M. (Ed.) (1966). Political parties and political development. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Lerner, D. (1964). The passing of traditional society. New York: Free Press.
  • Moore, B. J. (2016). Diktatörlüğün ve demokrasinin toplumsal kökenleri (Çev. Ş. Tekeli ve A. Şenel). Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
  • Neumann, F. L. (1950). Approaches to the study of political power. Political Science Quarterly, 65(2), p.161-180.
  • North, D. C. (1991). Institutions. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97-112.
  • Nye, J. S. (1990). Soft power. Foreign Policy, (80), 153-171.
  • O’Donnell, G. A. (1979). Modernization and bureaucratic authoritarianism. Berkeley: University of California.
  • Parsons, T. (1965). Structure and process in modern societies. New York: The Free Press.
  • Parsons, T. (1967). The social system. London: Routledge.
  • Rustow, D. A. (1990). Democracy: a global revolution?. Foreign Affairs, 69(4), 75-91.
  • Shils, E. (1965). Political development in the new states. The Hague: Mouton.
  • Skocpol, T. (2004). Devletler ve toplumsal devrimler (Çev. S. E. Türközü). Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
  • The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. (2002). https://www.state.gov/documents/organization, (26 Mart 2017).
  • Verba, S. and Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper and Row.
  • Wallerstein, I. (1992). Geopolitics and geoculture: essays on the changing world system. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

THE THEORY OF POLITICAL ORDER IN SAMUEL HUNTINGTON IN THE DIRECTION OF AMERICAN HEGEMONY ADVOCACY

Yıl 2021, Sayı: 59, 35 - 58, 31.08.2021
https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.865404

Öz

An order exists in the world. World order is a part of political order. The theory of political
order, which is a supreme concept of the theories related to order, is a basic theory behind the world
order. Also the theory of political order provides important perspective for understanding world
politics in a totalitarian and scientific way. The reason of such importance of the theory of political
order is the fact that the political structures exists inside the political order developed through the
dominant understanding. The person who makes the most comprehensive scientific explanations
about the theory of political order is Samuel P. Huntington. Samuel Huntington is one of the most
important political philosophers and political scientists of the 21’th century. Despite the importance of
the theory of political order and Huntington, theory of political order is not sufficiently explained in
the literature. The purpose of this article is to contribute to make totalitarian scientific explanation of
the political theories and especially the theory of political order of Samuel Huntington. An assessment
made in this direction also aims explaining the relation between the fact and theory of political order.
The theory of political order of Huntington is a part of American hegemony advocacy. Huntington is
one of the important theoreticians in the era of new world order. Accordingly, this article explains
important thesis of American hegemony advocacy. The theory of political order of Samuel
Huntington can be assessed under four titles: institutionalization, elements of national political order,
political order against change and the theory of new world order. Political parties, political
participation and political culture are the basic elements of national order. In conclusion, the political
theory of political order in Huntington states a theoretical base for existing phenomenon of political
order in the world.

Kaynakça

  • Almond, G. A. and Powell, G. B. (1966). Comparative politics: a developmental approach. Boston: Little Brown.
  • Almond, G. A. and Verba, S. (1989). The civic culture: political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
  • Brinton, C. (1965). The anatomy of revolution. New York: Vintage Books.
  • Cox, R. W. (1987). Production power and world order: social forces in the making of history. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Deutsch, K. W. (1961). Social mobilization and political development. American Political Science Review, 55(3), 493-514.
  • Eisenstadt, S. N. (1962). Initial institutional patterns of political modernization. Civilizations, 12(4), 461-474.
  • Eisenstadt, S. N. (1964). Institutionalization and change. American Sociological Review, 29(2), 235-247.
  • Eisenstadt, S. N. (1981). Cultural traditions and political dynamics: the origins and modes of ideological politics. The British Journal of Sociology, 32(2), 155-181.
  • Fukuyama, F. (2015). Political order and political decay. London: Profile Books. Goldberg, R. A. (2004). Who profited from the crime? Intelligence failure, conspiracy theories and the case of September 11. Intelligence and National Security, 19(2), 249-261. Gross, F. (1958). The seizure of political power. New York: Philosophical Library.
  • Huntington, S. P. (1965). Political development and political decay. World Politics, 17(3), 386-430.
  • Huntington, S. P. (1968). Political order in changing societies. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Huntington, S. P ve Dominguez, J. I. (1975). Siyasal gelişme (Çev. E. Özbudun). Ankara: Siyasal İlimler Derneği Yayımları.
  • Huntington, S. P. (1991). How countries democratize. Political Science Quarterly, 106(4), 579-616.
  • Huntington, S. P. (1993a). The clash of civilizations?. Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 22-49.
  • Huntington, S. P. (1993b). if not civilizations, what? Paradigms of the post-cold war world, Foreign Affairs, 72(5), 186-194.
  • Huntington, S. P. (1999). The lonely superpower. Foreign Affairs, 78(2), 35-49.
  • Huntington, S. P. (2011). Üçüncü dalga: geç 20. yüzyılda demokratikleşme (Çev. E. Özbudun). Ankara: Kilit Yayınları.
  • Ikenberry, J. (2011). Liberal leviathan. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  • Kornhauser, W. (1959). Politics of mass society. New York: The Free Press.
  • Kristol, W. and Kagan, R. (1996). Toward a neo-reaganite foreign policy. Foreign Affairs, 75(4), 18-32.
  • LaPalombara, J. and Weiner, M. (Ed.) (1966). Political parties and political development. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Lerner, D. (1964). The passing of traditional society. New York: Free Press.
  • Moore, B. J. (2016). Diktatörlüğün ve demokrasinin toplumsal kökenleri (Çev. Ş. Tekeli ve A. Şenel). Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
  • Neumann, F. L. (1950). Approaches to the study of political power. Political Science Quarterly, 65(2), p.161-180.
  • North, D. C. (1991). Institutions. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97-112.
  • Nye, J. S. (1990). Soft power. Foreign Policy, (80), 153-171.
  • O’Donnell, G. A. (1979). Modernization and bureaucratic authoritarianism. Berkeley: University of California.
  • Parsons, T. (1965). Structure and process in modern societies. New York: The Free Press.
  • Parsons, T. (1967). The social system. London: Routledge.
  • Rustow, D. A. (1990). Democracy: a global revolution?. Foreign Affairs, 69(4), 75-91.
  • Shils, E. (1965). Political development in the new states. The Hague: Mouton.
  • Skocpol, T. (2004). Devletler ve toplumsal devrimler (Çev. S. E. Türközü). Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
  • The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. (2002). https://www.state.gov/documents/organization, (26 Mart 2017).
  • Verba, S. and Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper and Row.
  • Wallerstein, I. (1992). Geopolitics and geoculture: essays on the changing world system. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toplam 35 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Baki Erken 0000-0001-9453-2304

Yayımlanma Tarihi 31 Ağustos 2021
Kabul Tarihi 24 Mart 2021
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2021 Sayı: 59

Kaynak Göster

APA Erken, B. (2021). AMERİKAN HEGEMONYASI SAVUNUSU DOĞRULTUSUNDA SAMUEL HUNTİNGTON’DA SİYASAL DÜZEN TEORİSİ. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi(59), 35-58. https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.865404

TRDizinlogo_live-e1586763957746.pnggoogle-scholar.jpgopen-access-logo-1024x416.pngdownload.jpgqMV-nsBH.pngDRJI-500x190.jpgsobiad_2_0.pnglogo.pnglogo.png  arastirmax_logo.gif17442EBSCOhost_Flat.png?itok=f5l7Nsj83734-logo-erih-plus.jpgproquest-300x114.jpg

ERÜ İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 2021 | iibfdergi@erciyes.edu.tr

Bu eser Creative Commons Atıf-Gayri Ticari-Türetilemez 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır. 

 88x31.png