HİYERARŞİK İKTİDAR İLİŞKİLERİ VE TOPLUMSAL CİNSİYET: ULUSLARARASI İLİŞKİLER DİSİPLİNİNDE HEGEMONİK İKİLİKLER VE ERİL AKLIN ELEŞTİRİSİ

Öz

Bu çalışma, Joan W. Scott’ın iktidar ilişkilerini merkeze alan toplumsal cinsiyet yaklaşımından hareketle, Uluslararası İlişkiler (Uİ) disiplinindeki hegemonik ikili karşıtlıkların ve hiyerarşik iktidar ilişkilerinin cinsiyetçi ve eril dil vasıtasıyla inşa edildiğini ve meşrulaştırıldığını öne sürmektedir. Maskülen/feminen ikiliği üzerine inşa edilen bu dil erkeği güç, koruma, bağımsızlık, rekabet, saldırganlık gibi kavramlarla ilişkilendirmekte; bunun Kartezyen ikiliği olarak görülen kadını ise zayıf, kırılgan, duygusal, pasif gibi kavramlarla imlemektedir. Bu ikiliklere dayalı stereotipik toplumsal cinsiyet ilişkileri, Uİ disiplininde, realist kuramın hayatta kalma, kendine yardım, özerklik gibi temel varsayımlarının hegemonik erkeklikle ilişkilendirilen güç, bağımsızlık, cesaret gibi maskülen kavramlarla doğrudan bağ kurulmasıyla açığa çıkmaktadır. Bundan dolayı, çalışma Uİ disiplinindeki ben/öteki, dost/düşman, iç/dış, düzen/anarşi ve merkez/çevre gibi hegemonik ikili karşıtlıkları sorgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Feminizm
• Geleneksel Uİ
• Realizm
• Toplumsal Cinsiyet
• Maskülinite/Feminite

Kaynakça

1. Ahmed, Sara (2014), The Cultural Politics of Emotion, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).
2. Ataman, Muhittin (2009), “Feminizm: Geleneksel Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorilerine Alternatif Yaklaşımlar Demeti” Alternatif Politika 1, (1), 1-41.
3. Aydın Koyuncu, Çiğdem (2011), “Dış Politika Karar Verme Mekanizmalarında Kadının Yeri” Amme İdaresi Dergisi 44, (4), 99-120.
4. Benhabib, Seyla (1987), “The Generalized and the Concrete Other,” Feminism as Critique: Essays on the Politics of Gender in Late Capitalist Societies ed. Seyla Benhabib ve Drucilla Cornell (Cambridge: Polity Press,), 77-96.
5. Benhabib, Seyla (1993), “Feminist Theory and Hannah Arendt's Concept of Public Space” History of the Human Sciences 6 (2), 97-114.
6. Blanchard, Eric (2003), “Gender, International Relations, and the Development of Feminist Security Theory” Sign: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28 (4), 1289-1312.
7. Butler, Judith (2016), Cinsiyet Belası Feminizm ve Kimliğin Altüst Edilmesi (İstanbul: Metis Yayınları).
8. Campbell, David (1998), Writing Security (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).

9. Carr, Edward Hallett (1981), The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (Londra: The Macmillan Press).
10. Carver, Terrell (2003), “Gender/Feminism/IR, The Forum-Gender and International Relations” International Studies Review 5, 287-302.
11. Cox, Robert (1981), “Social Forces, States, and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 10 (2), 126-155.
12. Distefano, Christine (1983), “Masculinity as Ideology in Political Theory: Hobbesian Man Considered” Women's Studies International Forum 6 (6), 633-644.
13. Donovan, Josephine (2016), Feminist Teori (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları).
14. Doty, Roxanne L. (1996), Imperial Encounters the Politics of Representation in North-South Relations, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).
15. Dryzek, John (1990), Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science (New York: Cambridge University Press).
16. Dyvik, Synne Laastad (2014), “Women as ‘Practitioners’ and ‘Targets’: Gender and Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan” International Feminist Journal of Politics 16 (3), 410-429.
17. Dyvik, Synne Laastad (2017), Gendering Counterinsurgency: Performativity, Experience and Embodiment in the Afghan 'Theatre of War' (London: Routledge).
18. Eken, Mehmet Evren (2016), “Feminizm, Maskülinite ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorisi: Uluslararası Siyasetin Toplumsal Cinsiyeti,” Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri ed. Ramazan Gözen (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları), 443-489.
19. Enloe, Cynthia (2000), Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics (California: University of California Press).
20. Escobar, Arturo (1995), Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World, (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
21. Friedman, Susan (2001), “Feminism, State Fictions and Violence: Gender, Geopolitics and Transnationalism” Communal/Plural 9 (1), 111-129.
22. Haraway, Donna (1998), “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective”, Feminist Studies, 14 (3), 575-599.
23. Harding, Sandra (1986), “The Instability of the Analytical Categories of Feminist Theory” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 11 (4), 645-664.
24. Hoffmann, Stanley (1977), “An American Social Science: International Relations” Daedalus 106 (3), 41-60.
25. Inayatullah, Naeem ve David Blaney (2004), International Relations and the Problem of Difference, (London: Routledge).
26. Keller, Evelyn Fox (2005), Toplumsal Cinsiyet ve Bilim Üzerine Düşünceler (İstanbul: Metis Yayınları).
27. Kristeva, Julia (1982), Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection (New York: Columbia University Press).
28. Kumar, Krishan ve Jeff Weintraub (1997), Public and Private in Thought and Practice: Perspectives on a Grand Dichotomy (Londra: University of Chicago Press).
29. Linklater, Andrew (1992), “The Question of the Next Stage in International Relations Theory: A Critical Theoretical Point of View” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 21 (1), 77-98.
30. Lloyd, Genevieve (2015), Erkek Akıl Batı Felsefesinde Erkek ve Kadın (İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları).
31. Locher, Birgit ve Elisabeth Prügl (2001), “Feminism and Constructivism: Worlds Apart or Sharing the Middle Ground?” International Studies Quarterly 45 (1), 111-129.
32. Meyerowitz, Joanne (2008), “A History of “Gender”” The American Historical Review 113 (5), 1346-1356.
33. Mohanty, Chandra T. (2003), Feminism without Borders Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity, (London: Duke University Press).
34. Morgan, David (1994), “Theater of War: Combat, the Military and Masculinities,” Theorizing Masculinities ed. Harry Brod ve Michael Kaufman, (London: Sage), 165-183.
35. Morgenthau, Hans (1985), Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York: Alfred A. Knopf).
36. Norlander, Kerstin (2003), “Some Reflections on Gender Relations” Gender and Power in the New Europe the 5th European Feminist Research Conferences, (Sweden: Lund University), 1-12.
37. Osiander, Andreas (2001), “Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth” International Organization 55 (2), 251-287.
38. Peterson, Spike (2004), “Feminist Theories within, Invisible to, and beyond IR” Brown Journal of World Affairs 10 (2), 35-46.
39. Rosenberg, Emily (1990), “Gender” The Journal of American History 77 (1), 116-124.
40. Scott, Joan Wallach (2013a), “Önsöz,” Feminist Tarihin Peşinde ed. Fahriye Dinçer & Özlem Aslan (İstanbul: BGST Yayınları), 13-18.
41. Scott, Joan Wallach (2013b), “Toplumsal Cinsiyet: Faydalı Bir Tarihsel Analiz Kategorisi” Feminist Tarihin Peşinde ed. Fahriye Dinçer & Özlem Aslan (İstanbul: BGST Yayınları), 61-105.
42. Scott, Joan Wallach (2013c), “Toplumsal Cinsiyet: Hala Faydalı Bir Analiz Kategorisi mi?” Feminist Tarihin Peşinde ed. Fahriye Dinçer & Özlem Aslan (İstanbul: BGST Yayınları), 181-197.
43. Sjoberg, Laura (2012), “Gender, Structure, and War: What Waltz Couldn't See” International Theory 4 (1), 1-38.
44. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (2009), “Madun Konuşabilir Mi?,” Methodos: Kuram ve Yöntem Kenarından ed. Dilek Hattatoğlu ve Gökçen Ertuğrul (İstanbul: Anahtar Kitaplar), 53-115.
45. Steans, Jill (1998), Gender and International Relations (Cambridge: Polity Press).
46. Sylvester, Christine (1993), Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
47. Sylvester, Christine (2004), Feminist International Relations an Unfinished Journey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
48. Teschke, Benno (2003), The Myth of 1648: Class, Geopolitics, and the Making of Modern International Relations (London: Verso).
49. Tickner, Ann (1988), “Hans Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism: A Feminist Reformulation” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 17 (3), 429-440.
50. Tickner, Ann (1992), Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global (New York: Columbia University Press).
51. Tickner, Ann (1997), “You Just Don't Understand: Troubled Engagements between Feminists and IR Theorists” International Studies Quarterly 41 (4), 611-632.
52. Tickner, Ann (1999), “Searching for the Princess? Feminist Perspectives in International Relations” Harvard International Review 21 (4), 44–48.
53. Tong, Rosemarie (2014), Feminist Thought A More Comprehensive Introduction (Boulder: Westview Press).
54. Tür, Özlem ve Çiğdem Aydın Koyuncu (2010), “Feminist Uluslararası İlişkiler Yaklaşımı: Temelleri, Gelişimi, Katkı ve Sorunları”, Uluslararası İlişkiler 7 (2), 3-24.
55. Walby, Sylvia (2016), Patriyarka Kuramı (Ankara: Dipnot Yayınları).
56. Wendt, Alexander (1992), “Anarchy is What States Make of it: the Social Construction of Power Politics” International Organization 46 (2), 391-425.
57. Wibben, Annick (2011), Feminist Security Studies: A Narrative Approach (London: Routledge). Y eğenoğlu, Meyda (2017), Sömürgeci Fanteziler: Oryantalist Söylemde Kültürel ve Cinsel Fark, (İstanbul: Metis Yayınları).