Attitudes and Behaviours Towards Combating of Terrorism Within the Scope of Social Integration

Öz

In this study, the manners and behaviors regarding combating terrorism was reviewed in the context of social integration in order to play more effective role in one of the most basic issue of today’s society; terror and combating terrorism. First of all, the notion of “social integration” evaluated in terms of basic definitions and criterions/standards. In this point, social integration is the situation where in a society various elements of social structure such as; different individuals, groups, institutions, classes, organizations and relations are completing each other. Therefore, in the context of combating terrorism, the formation of manners and behaviors in society should also be reviewed within the scope of social integration. While manners have impacts on the behaviors to an occasion or to an issue, several factors are determining the manners. In this study, manners and behaviors of individuals and society regarding the combating terrorism was discussed on basic standards in the related part of the study. The dilemma between the civil freedom and international security was reviewed and the factors that are determining the manners and behaviors regarding combating terrorism are also evaluated in this context. The conclusion part of the article offeres several solutions about the combating terrorism procedure within the scope of social integration

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Terrorism,Combating Terrorism,Attitude and Behaviour,Social Integration

Toplumsal Bütünleşme Kapsamında Terörizmle Mücadeleye Yönelik Tutumlar ve Davranışlar

Öz

Bu çalışmada günümüz toplumlarının en temel sorunlarından biri olan terör ve terörizmle mücadelede daha etkin bir rol oynayabilmesi amacıyla, toplumsal bütünleşme olgusu çerçevesinde terörizmle mücadeleye yönelik tutumlar ve davranışlar ele alınmıştır. İlk olarak, toplumsal bütünleşme kavramı temel tanım ve ölçütler üzerinden değerlendirilmiştir. Bu noktada toplumsal bütünleşme, toplumdaki farklı bireylerin, grupların, kurumların, sınıfların, örgütlerin ve ilişkilerin, yani toplumsal yapının çeşitli öğelerinin birbirini tamamlayabilmesidir. Dolayısıyla terörizmle mücadele kapsamında toplumun tutum ve davranışlarının oluşması da toplumsal bütünleşme kapsamında ele alınmalıdır. Tutumlar, bir olaya, bir konuya yönelik davranışlar üzerinde etkili olurken, birtakım faktörler de tutumları belirler. Bu kapsamda çalışmanın ilgili kısmında terörizmle mücadelede bireylerin ve toplumun konuya yönelik tutum ve davranışları temel ölçütler bağlamında tartışılmıştır. Ardından terörizmle mücadelede sivil özgürlükler ve ulusal güvenlik ikilemi değerlendirilmiş, bu kapsamda terörizmle mücadeleye yönelik tutum ve davranışları belirleyen faktörler açıklanmıştır. Çalışmanın sonuç bölümünde ise terörizmle mücadele sürecinde toplumsal bütünleşme bağlamında çözüm önerileri getirilmiştir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Terörizm,Terörizmle Mücadele,Tutum ve Davranış,Toplumsal Bütünleşme

Kaynakça

1. Bayley, David H.; Weisburd, David, (2009), “Cops and Spooks: The Role of Police in Counterterrorism”, David Weisburd, Thomas Feucht, Idit Hakimi, Lois Mock, Si- mon Perry (eds.), To Protect and To Serve Policing in an Age of Terrorism, New York: Springer, ss. 81-99.
2. Bernard, Paul, (1999), “La Cohesion Sociale: Critique d’un Quasi-Concept”, Lien Social et Politiques-RIAC, 41, ss. 47-59.
3. Berrebi, Claude; Klor, Esteban F., (2006), “On Terrorism and Electoral Outcomes: Theory and Evidence from the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict”, The Journal of Conflict Resoluti- on, Vol. 50, No. 6, (December), ss. 899-925.
4. Botterman, Sarah; Hooghe, Marc; Reeskens, Tim, (2011), “‘One Size Fits All’? An Em- pirical Study into the Multidimensionality of Social Cohesion Indicators in Belgian Local Communities”, Urban Study, Vol. 49, Issue 1, ss. 185-202.
5. Breckler, Steven, (1985), “Empirical Validation of Affect, Behavior, and Cognition as Dis- tinct Components of Attitude”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 47, Issue 6, ss. 1191-1205.
6. Chan, Joseph; To, Ho-Pong; Chan, Elaine, (2006), “Reconsidering Social Cohesion: De- veloping a Definition and Analytical Framework for Empirical Research”, Social Indi- cators Research, Vol. 75, Issue 2, (January), ss. 273-302.
7. Council of Europe, (2008), Well-Being for All: Concepts and Tools for Social Cohesion Trends in Social Cohesion, No. 20, Belgium: Council of Europe Publishing, https:// www.coe.int/t/dg3/socialpolicies/socialcohesiondev/source/Trends/Trends-20_en.pdf, (E.T.: 11.10.2017).
8. Davis, Darren W.; Silver, Brian D., (2004), “Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America”, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 48, Issue 1, (January), ss. 28-46.

9. Dunn, Elizabeth W.; Moore, Moriah; Nosek, Brian. A, (2005), “The War of the Words: How Linguistic Differences in Reporting Shape Perceptions of Terrorism”, Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 5, Issue 1, ss. 67-86.
10. Durkheim, Emile, (1893/1964), The Division of Labor in Society, Çev. George Simpson, New York: Free Press.
11. Eagly, Alice Hendrickson; Chaiken, Shelly, (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes, Fort Worth, Tex. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
12. European Commission, (2008), The Ethical Justness of European Counter-Terrorism Me- asures, Transnational Terrorism, Security &The Rule of Law, Web https://www.peace- palacelibrary.nl/ebooks/files/375893784.pdf, (E.T.: 15.01.2018).
13. European Commission, (2011), The Ethical Justness of European Counter-terrorism Measures, Transnational Terrorism, Security &The Rule of Law, https://www.peace- palacelibrary.nl/ebooks/files/375893784.pdf, www.transnationalterrorism.eu, (E.T.: 15.01.2018).
14. Fishbein, Martin; Ajzen, Icek, (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Int- roduction to Theory and Research (Addison-Wesley series in social psychology), Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, http://people.umass.edu/aizen/f&a1975.html, (E.T.: 02.02.2018).
15. Green, Andy; Preston, John; Sabates, Ricardo, (2003), “Education, Equality and Social Cohesion: A Distributional Approach”, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and In- ternational Education, Vol. 33, Issue 4, ss. 453-470.
16. Hartley, Eugene L.; Hartley, Ruth E.; Hart, Clyde, (1958), “Tutumlar ve Kanaatler”, Kitle Haberleşmesi Teorilerine Giriş –Seçilmiş Parçalar-, (Der. ve Çev. Ünsal Oskay), An- kara Üniversitesi Basın-Yayın Yüksekokulu Yay., No: 7, Ankara.
17. Hasisi, Badi; Geoffrey, Alpert; Dan, P., Flynn, (2009), “The Impacts of Policing Terrorism on Society: Lessons from Israel and the US”, David Weisburd, Thomas Feucht, Idit Hakimi, Lois Mock, Simon Perry (eds.), To Protect and To Serve Policing in an Age of Terrorism, New York: Springer, ss. 177-202.
18. Himberger, D. Gaylin; Tompson, D.; Agiesta,, T.; Kelly, J., (2013), “Civil Liberties and Security: 10 years after 9/11”, The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, http://www.apnorc.org/PDFs/Civil%20Liberties/AP-NORC-Civil-Liber- ties-Security-9-11-Report.pdf, (E.T.: 26.11.2017).
19. Huddy, Leonie; Khatib, Nadia; Capelos, Theresa, (2002), “Trends: Reactions to the Ter- rorist Attacks of September 11, 2001”, The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 66, No. 3, (Autumn), ss. 418-450.
20. Huddy, Leonie; Feldman, Stanley; Taber, Charles; Lahav, Gallya, (2005), “Threat, Anxiety, and Support of Antiterrorism Policies”, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 49, No. 3, (July), ss. 593-608.
21. Innes, Martin, (2006), “Policing Uncertainty: Countering Terror through Community In- telligence and Democratic Policing”, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 605, Issue 1, ss. 222-241.
22. Jackson, Andrew, (2000), Social Cohesion in Canada: Possible Indicators, Canadian Council on Social Development, Strategic Research and Analysis (SRA), http://www. ccsd.ca/pubs/2001/si/sra-543.pdf, (E.T.: 18.10.2017).
23. Janmaat, Jan Germen, (2011), “Social Cohesion as a Real-life Phenomenon: Assessing the Explanatory Power of the Universalist and Particularist Perspectives”, Social Indica- tors Research, Vol. 100, Issue 1, (January), ss.61-83.
24. Jeanotte, M. Sharon, (2000), “Social Cohesion Around the World: An International Com- parison of Definitions and Issues”, Strategic Research and Analysis, Strategic Plan- ning and Policy Coordination Department of Canadian Heritage, Québec, http://cite- seerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.618.972&rep=rep1&type=pdf, (E.T.: 17.10.2017).
25. Jenson, Jane, (1998), Mapping Social Cohesion: The State of Canadian Research, CPRN Study, No. F/03, Ottawa, http://www.cccg.umontreal.ca/pdf/cprn/cprn_f03.pdf (E.T.: 19.10.2017).
26. Jonathan, Tal, (2010), “Police Involvement in Counter-Terrorism and Public Attitudes Towards the Police in Israel 1998-2007”, The British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 50, Issue 4, (1), (July), ss. 748-771.
27. Jonathan, Tal; Weisburd, David, (2010), “How do Majority Communities View the Po- tential Costs of Policing Terrorism? Findings from a Community Survey in Israel”, Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, Vol. 4, Issue 2, (1), (January), ss. 169-181.
28. Kearns, Ade;, Forrest, Ray, (2000), “Social Cohesion and Multilevel Urban Governance”, Urban Studies, Vol. 37, Issue 5-6, ss. 995-1017.
29. Kıbrıs, Arzu, (2011), “Funerals and Elections: The Effects of Terrorism on Voting Behavi- or in Turkey”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 55, Issue 2, ss. 220-247.
30. Levi, Margaret; Sacks, Audrey; Tyler, Tom R., (2009), “Conceptualizing Legitimacy, Measuring Legitimating Beliefs”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 53, Issue 3, ss. 354-375.
31. Mackie, Diane; Cooper, Joel, (1984), “Attitude Polarization: Effects of Group Member- ship”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 46, Issue 3, ss. 575-585.
32. Mesquita, Ethan Bueno de; Dickson, Eric S., (2007), “The Propaganda of the Deed: Ter- rorism, Counterterrorism, and Mobilization”, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 51, Issue 2, (April), ss. 364-381.
33. Mythen, Gabe; Walklate, Sandra Lyn; Khan, Fatima, (2009), “ ‘I’M a Muslim, But I’m Not a Terrorist’: Victimization, Risky Identities and the Performance of Safety”, Bri- tish Journal of Criminology, Vol. 49, Issue 6, (November), ss. 736-754.
34. Mythen, Gabe; Walklate, Sandra, (2006), “Criminology and Terrorism: Which thesis? Risk society or Governmentality?”, British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 46, Issue 3, ss. 379-398.
35. Pantazis, Christina; Pemberton, Simon, (2012), “Reconfiguring Security and Liberty: Po- litical Discourses and Public Opinon in the New Century”, British Journal of Crimino- logy, Vol. 52, Issue 3, (April), ss. 651-667.
36. Parmar, Alpa, (2011), “Stop and search in London: counter-terrorist or counter-produc- tive?”, Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy, Vol. 21, Issue 4: Stop and search in global context, ss. 369-382.
37. Penninx, Rinus, (2003), “Integration: The Role of Communities, Institutions, and the Sta- te”, Migration, Information Source, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/integrati- on-role-communities-institutions-and-state, (E.T.: 10.10.2017).
38. PEW, Washington Post Survey (June 10 2013), Public Says Investigate Terrorism, Even If It Intrudes on Privacy, Majority Views NSA Phone Tracking as Acceptable Anti - Terror Tactic, http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/06-10-13%20PRC%20 WP%20Surveillance%20Release.pdf, (E.T.: 11.10.2017).
39. Putnam, Robert, (1993), “The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life”, The American Prospect [Internet], Vol. 13, ss. 35-42.
40. Ritzen, Jo; Easterly, William; Woolcock, Michael, (2000), On “Good” Politicians and “Bad” Policies: Social Cohesion, Institutions, and Growth, Policy Research Working Paper, No. 2448, World Bank, Washington, DC.
41. Spencer, Alexander, (2012), Lessons Learnt, Terrorism and Media, Arts and Humanities Research Council, AHRC Public Policy Series No. 4, http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/docu- ments/project-reports-and-reviews/ahrc-public-policy-series/terrorism-and-the-me- dia/, (E.T.: 05.01.2018).
42. Spoonley, Paul; Peace, Robin; Butcher, Aandrew; O’Neill, Damian, (2005), “Social Co- hesion: A Policy and Indicator Framework for Assessing Immigrant and Host Outco- mes”, Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, Issue 25, (March), ss. 85-110.
43. Sunshine, Jason; Tyler, Tom R., (2003), “The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public Support for Policing”, Law and Society Review, Vol. 37, Issue 3, ss. 513-548.
44. Şen, Y. Furkan, (2018), “Algı ve Gerçeklik Bağlamında Terörizm”, Güvenlik Çalışmaları Dergisi, Cilt 20, Sayı 1, ss. 7-33.
45. Tonnies, Ferdinand (1887/1957), Community and Society, (Çev. Charles Price Loomis), East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
46. Tyler, Tom R.; Huo, Yuen J., (2002), Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Court, New York: Russell Sage.
47. Tyler, Tom R.; Wakslak, Cheryl J., (2004), “Profiling and Police Legitimacy: Procedural Justice, Attributions of Motive, and Acceptance of Police Authority”, Criminology, Vol. 42, Issue 2, (May), ss. 253-282.
48. Yeniçeri, Zuhal; Dönmez, Ali, (2008), “Terörizm ve Terörist Algısı: Silahı Kimin Tuttuğu Ne Kadar Etkili?”, Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, Cilt 23, Sayı 62, (Aralık), ss. 93-103.