POLITICAL CHARACTER OF THE SOCIAL ACTIONS IN THE PROCESS OF GLOBALIZATION: A CASE STUDY

Yıl 2011, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2, 159 - 168, 01.12.2011

Derya Çakır Kamil Demirhan

Öz

Globalization’s attribution of blurring the boundaries is not restricted to the economical and cultural terms. It is also notable for the questions of what is social, what is ecological and what is political. Due to the increase of ecological risks in the global world, some spontaneous social movements have developed to prevent the causes and negative effects of these dangers. Mostly, these movements are seen as in the respect of ecological and social actions. Today it is rather difficult to distinguish the ecological movements from the social ones, and the social and ecological ones from the political ones. This means that today, an ecological movement is at the same time a social and a political movement. The purpose of this study is to analyze the political character of social actions by means of a case study which centers upon ecological movements in Turkey in recent years. The study focuses on the social movements developing around HES project. Firstly, this study examines the development of a social-ecological movement reacted against the HES project. The first part of the study makes emphasis on the spontaneous nature of the movement in its early stage. Secondly, this study tries to make the characteristic of the way of organization of the movement clear. The movement has a distinctive nature compared to NGOs and their structure of organization. Lastly, the study tries to prove that just like the other social and ecological movements in recent years, the movement against the HES project can be evaluated as both a social-ecological and a political movement. In this part the political nature of the movement is tried to be examined within the scope of the issue of political participation, political pressure and political antagonism

Anahtar Kelimeler

Social action, globalization, political action, ecologic movement

Kaynakça

• Balat, Havva (2007), “A renewable perspective for sustainable energy development in Turkey: The case of small hydropower plants”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol.11, No. 9, pp. 2152-2165.
• Barns, Ian (1996), “Environment, Democracy and Community”, (in: Freya
• Mathews-Ed. Ecology and Democracy), England: Frank Cass, pp.101-133. Barber, Benjamin (2004), “Jihad vs. McWorld”, (in: Frank J. Lechner and John
• Boli-Ed. The Globalization Reader), USA: Blackwell, pp. 29-35. Beck, Ulrich (2005), Siyasallığın İcadı, Trans. Nihat Ülner, İstanbul: İletişim.
• Boli, John and George M. Thomas (2004), “World Culture in the World Polity: A
• Century of International Non-Governmental Organization” (in: Frank J. Lechner and John Boli-Ed. The Globalization Reader), USA: Blackwell, pp.258-264. Bond, Michael (2004), “The Backlash Against NGOs”, (in: Frank J. Lechner and John Boli-Ed. The Globalization Reader), USA: Blackwell, pp.277-282.
• Burnheim, Lohn (1996), "Power-Trading and the Environment", (in: Freya
• Mathews-Ed. Ecology and Democracy), England: Frank Cass, pp.49-65. Doyle, Timothy and Doug McEachern (1998), Environment and Politics, London: Routlege.
• Dragu, Catalin , Tom Sells, Ronnie Belmans (2001), “Small Hydro Power – State of The Art and Applications”, Proceedings of International Conference Power
• Generation and Sustainable Development, pp. 265-270. Giddens, Anthony (2008), Sosyoloji, İstanbul: Kırmızı.
• Habermas, Jurgen (2008), Küresellleşme ve Milli Devletlerin Akıbeti, Trans.
• Medeni Beyaztaş, İstanbul: Bakış. Hamsici, Mahmut (2010), “Dereler ve İsyanlar”, Ankara: NotaBene.
• Held, David, Anthony McGrew, David Goldblatt, Jonathan Perraton (1999),
• Global Transformations, ABD: Standford University. International Hydropower Association, (2003), The Role of Hydropower in
• Sustainable Development, IHA. Kaygusuz, Kamil (2002), “Sustainable development of hydropower and biomass energy in Turkey”, Energy Conversion and Management Vol. 43, No. 8, pp. 1120.
• Kindler, Alan (2010), “Spontaneity and Improvisation in Psychoanalysis”,
• Psychoanalytic Inquiry, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 222-234. Mathews, Jessica. T. (2004), “Power Shift”, (in: Frank J. Lechner and John Boli
• Ed. The Globalization Reader), USA: Blackwell, pp. 270-276. McGrew, A. (2004), “Power shift: from national government to global governance?”, (in: David Held-Ed. A globalizing world? culture, economics, politics), UK: Open University, pp. 123-159.
• Naess, Arne (1973), “The Shallow And The Deep, Long Range Ecology
• Movements: A Summary”, Inquiry, 16. OECD & International Energy Agency, (2008), Energy Technology Perspectives,
• International Energy Agency. Spolin, Viola (1999), Improvisation for the theater: a handbook of teaching and directing techniques, Evanston: Northwestern University.
• Thomas, Frank R. (2007), “Carolyn Merchant (ed): Radical Ecology: The Search for a Livable World. 2nd Edition”, Human Ecology, 35, pp: 645–646.
• Thomlinson, John (2004), Küreselleşme ve Kültür, Trans. Arzu Eker, İstanbul: Ayrıntı.
• Thompson, Janna (1996), “Towards a Green World Order: Environment and World Politics”, (in: Freya Mathews-Ed. Ecology and Democracy), England: Frank Cass, pp:31-48.
• Tuomela, Raimo (1984), A Theory of Social Action, Holland: D. Reidel.
• Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman and Henry E. Brady (1995). Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University.
• Wapner, Paul (2004), “Greenpeace and Political Globalism”, (in: Frank J. Lechner and John Boli-Ed. The Globalization Reader), USA: Blackwell, pp. 377-383.
• Wijkman, Anders (1998), “Does Sustainable Development Require Good
• Governance?”, UN Cronicles Vol. 35, No. 3. Yüksel, İbrahim (2010), “As a renewable energy hydropower for sustainable development in Turkey”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 14 No. 9, pp. 3213–3219.
• Kaase, Max (2011), “Democracy and Political Action” International Political
• Science Review, Vol. 31, No. 5. pp. 539–551.