Modernite ve Batı: Aralarındaki İlişkinin Evrimi

Yıl 2007, Sayı: 13, 82 - 107, 01.06.2007

Cengiz Dinç

Öz

Makale kısaca ‘bir modernite’ tanımı ve değerlendirmesi verdikten sonra
modernite ve Batı arasındaki tarihsel ilişkinin evrimini analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır.
Modernite bir Avrupa başarısı olarak ortaya çıkmış ve ABD’nin küresel bir aktör olmasıyla
bir Avrupa projesi olmaktan çıkıp Batı’yla güçlü ilişkisi olan bir proje haline
gelmiştir. Bugün, modernitenin kavramlaştırılmasında Batı’nın göreli ağırlığı ciddi şekilde
tartışılmaktadır. Batı yekpare değildir; doğal bir varlık olmaktan ziyade ‘inşa edilmiş’
bir kavramdır. Yine de, Batı, belirli bir tip toplumu ve gelişmişlik düzeyini temsil
etmektedir. Makalede, modernitenin hala belirli ölçüde Batı’yla güçlü bir ilişki içinde
olduğunun ileri sürülebileceği belirtilmektedir. Açıktır ki modernite ve Batı bugün
özdeş kabul edilemez ve modernitenin, Batı-dışı seslere, geleneksel miraslara ve yeni
tecrübelerin değerli katkılarına izin veren, yeni kavramlaştırma çabaları küresel
modernitenin daha sağlıklı anlaşılabilmesi için önemlidir. Avrupa’nın ve Batı’nın yükselmesini
tarihi bir dönem olarak görmek mümkündür ve pek çok Batılı olmayan liderliği,
moderniteyle ilgili imtiyazlı yeri dahil, Batı’dan geri almanın mümkün olduğunu düşünmektedir. Yine de, Batı’nın modernitenin anlaşılmasında hala baskın bir yere sahip
olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmaktadır. Bu, Batı’nın pratikteki baskınlığına şahit olan bölgeler
için daha geçerli bir durum olabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Modernite, Batı, Modernitenin Tarihi

Modernity and the West: Evolution of Their Relationship

Öz

The article tries to give ‘a definition’ and an evaluation of modernity, and analyze historical evolution of its relationship with the West. Modernity emerged as a European success; as the USA became a major actor in the global affairs modernity evolved from being a Europeanproject to a project that has a strong association with the West. Today, the relative weight of the West in conceptualization of the modernity is strongly debated. ‘The West’ is not monolithic; it is a ‘constructed concept’ rather than a natural entity. Still, the West represents a certain type of society and level of development. It is still possible to argue that there is a strong association between modernity with the West. Clearly, modernity and the West cannot be identified and efforts to reach new conceptualizations of modernity which allows to valuable contributions from the voices, legacies and new experiences in the non-Western contexts are important to reach a more accurate understanding of global modernity. The articles also argue that it is possible to see the rise of Europe and the West as a historical phase and many non-Westerners think that it is achievable to regain the lead from the West. Nevertheless, it is concluded, the West still enjoys a dominant position in conceptualization of modernity. Perhaps, this is more so when looked from the regions that witnesses practical dominance of the West

Anahtar Kelimeler

Modernity, West, History of Modernity

Kaynakça

• Arnason, J. P. (2000) “Communism and Modernity” Daedalus, 129 (1), pp. 61-90.
• Abu-Lughod, J. L. (1989) Before European Hegemony (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
• Bauman, Z. (1995) “Searching for a Centre that Holds” in Featherstone M. et al (eds), Global Modernities (London: Sage), pp. 140-154.
• Belge, M. (2002) “Batılılaşma: Türkiye ve Rusya” in Kocabaşoğlu, U. (ed) Modernleşme ve Batıcılık (İstanbul: İletişim), pp. 43-55.
• Bellah, R.M (1983) “Cultural Identity and Modernization in Asian Countries”, Proceedings of Kokugakuin University Centennial Symposium Institute for Japanese Culture and Classics Kokugakuin University, from
• http://www2.kokugakuin.ac.jp/ijcc/wp/cimac/bellah.html, accessed Feb. 2005].
• Berger, P. (1967) Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion
• Berger, Peter L. (1996/97) "Secularism in Retreat" (The National Interest, no: 46, (Win- ter 1996/97), pp. 3-13.
• Berger, P. (2005) “Religion and the West”, The National Interest, (Summer), pp. 112-119.
• Blokker, P. (2005) “Post-Communist Modernization, Transition Studies, and Diversity in
• EuropeEuropean Journal of Social Theory, 8 (4), pp. 503 - 525.
• Black, C. E. (1966) The Dynamics of Modernization (London: Harper and Row).
• Brown, L. R. 1998 “The Future of Growth” in Brown L. R. et al. The State of the World (London: W. W. Norton and Co.), pp.3-20.
• Brown, R. H. (1998) "Modern Science and Its Critics: Toward a Post-Positivist Legitimiza- tion of Science", New Literary History, 29 (3), pp. 521-550.
• Bryant, J. M. (2006) “The West and the Rest Revisited: Debating Capitalist Origins, Euro- pean Colonialism, and the Advent of Modernity” Canadian Journal of Sociology, 31 (4), pp. 403-444.
• Cahoone, L. E. (1996) “Introduction” in Cahoone L. E. (ed.) From Modernism to Postmod- ernism: An Anthology (Oxford: Blackwell), pp. 1-23.
• Carnoy, M. (1984) The State and Political Theory (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
• Cipolla, C. M. (1976) Before the Industrial Revolution (London: Methuen).
• Dirlik, A (2003) “Global Modernity? Modernity in an Age of Global Capitalism” European Journal of Social Theory, 6 (3), pp. 275 - 292.
• Duby, G. (1974) The Early Growth of the European Economy (London: Weidenfeld and Ni- colson).
• Dussel, E. (2000) “Europe, Modernity and Eurocentrism”, Nepantla: Views from South, 1 (3), pp. 465-478
• Eisenstadt, S. N. (1966) Modernization: Protest and Change (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:Pren- tice-Hall).
• Eisenstadt, S. N. (1992) "A Reappraisal of Theories of Social Change and Moderniza- tion" in Haferkamp H. and N. J. Smelser (eds.) Social Change and Modernity (Califor- nia: University of California Press), pp. 412-430.
• Eisenstadt, S. N. (2000) “Multiple Modernities” Daedalus , 129 (1), pp. 1-29.
• Euben, R. L. (2003) “A Counternarrative of Shared Ambivalence:Some Muslim and
• Western Perspectives on Science and Reason”, Common Knowledge, 9 (1), pp. 50-77.
• Friedman, S. S. (2001) “Definitional Excursions: The Meanings of Mod- ern/Modernity/Modernism,” MODERNISM/ modernity, 8 (3), pp. 493-513
• Fukuyama, F. (1989) "The End of History", National Interest, no 16 (Summer), pp. 3-18.
• Gellner, E. (1988) "Introduction" in Baechler, J. et al., (eds) Europe and the Rise of Capi- talism (Oxford: Basil Blackwell), pp.1-5.
• Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity (Cambridge: Polity Press).
• Göle, N. (2000) “Snapshots of Islamic Modernities” Daedalus 129 (1), pp. 91- 117
• Göle, N. (2002a) “Islam in Public:New Visibilities and New Imaginaries” Public Culture, 14 (1), pp. 173–190.
• Göle, N. (2002b) “Batı Dışı Modernlik: Kavram Üzerine” in Kocabaşoğlu, U. (ed) Mod- ernleşme ve Batıcılık (İstanbul: İletişim), pp. 56-67.
• Göle, N. (2003) “Contemporary Islamist movements and new sources for religious toler- ance” Journal od Human Rights 2 (1), pp. 17–30
• Goldstone, J. A. (2002) “Efflorescences and Economic Growth in World History: Rethinking the ‘Rise of the West’ and the Industrial Revolution”, Journal of World History, 13 (2), pp 323-389.
• Hall, S. (1992a) “Introduction” in Hall S. and Gieben B. (eds.) Formations of Modernity (Cambridge: Polity Press), pp. 1-16.
• Hall, S. (1992b) “The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power” in Hall S. and Gieben B. (eds.) Formations of Modernity (Cambridge: Polity Press), pp. 275-320.
• Hall, S. et al (1992) “Introduction” in Hall S. Et al (eds.) Modernity and Its Futures (Cam- bridge: Polity Press), pp. 1-11.
• Hamilton, P. (1992) “The Enlightenment and the Birth of Social Science” in Hall S. and Gie- ben B. (eds.) Formations of Modernity (Cambridge: Polity Press), pp.17-58.
• Harvey, D. (1990) The Condition of Postmodernity (Oxford: Blackwell).
• Held, D. (1989) Political Theory and Modern State (Cambridge: Polity Press).
• Heller, A. (2000) “The Three Logics of Modernity and the Double Bind of the Modern Imagination”, Public Lecture Series, no: 22, Collegium Budapest, Institute for Advanced Study, pp. 1-23.
• Heller, A. and Feher F. (1991) The Postmodern Political Condition (Cambridge Polity).
• Huntington, S. P. (1993) "The Clash of Civilizations?" Foreign Affairs, 72 (3), pp. 22- 49.
• Huntington, S. 1998 [1996] The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking Of World Order (London: Touchstone Books).Jones, E. L. (1987) (2nd edn.) The European Miracle (Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press).
• Jones, E. L. (1987) (2nd edn.) The European Miracle (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
• Kaya, İ. (2006) Sosyal Teori ve Geç Modernlikler: Türk Deneyimi (Ankara: İmge).
• King, A. D. (1995) “The Times and Paces of Modernity (Or Who Needs Postmodernism?)” in Featherstone M. et al (eds) Global Modernities (London: Sage), pp. 108-123.
• Kocabaşoğlu, U. (ed) (2002) Modernleşme ve Batıcılık (İstanbul: İletişim).
• Kumar, K. (1988) Rise of Modern Society (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).
• Lewis, B. (1997) “The West and the Middle East” ForeignAffairs 76 (1) pp. 114-130.
• Lerner, D. (1968) "Modernization: Social Aspects" in International Encyclopedia of the So- cial Science (No place: Macmillan and Free Press), (vol.10), pp. 386-395.
• Ma, Eric K. W. (2001 ) “Consuming Satellite Modernities”Cultural Studies 15 ( 3 / 4 ), pp. 44 –463
• Mann, M. (1988) "European Development: Approaching a Historical Explanation" in Baechler, J. et al., (eds) Europe and the Rise of Capitalism (Oxford: Basil Blackwell), 6- 19.
• Marx, K. (1954) Capital, (vol.I) (London: Lawrence and Wishart).
• McLennan, G. (2000) “Sociology's Eurocentrism and the `Rise of the West' Revisited European Journal of Social Theory, 3 (3), pp. 275 - 291.
• McNeill, W. H. (1963) The Rise of the West (Chicago: Chicago University Press).
• McNeill, W. H. “The Rise of the West after Twenty-Five Years”, Journal of World History, 1 (1), pp. 1–21.
• Meriç, C. (1983), "Batılaşma" in Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türkiye Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: Iletişim Yay.), (vol.1), pp. 234-244.
• Moore B. (1973[1966]) Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (Harmondsworth: Penguin University Books).
• Mouzelis, N. (1999) “Modernity: a noEuropean Conceptualization”, British Journal of Soci- ology, 50 (1), pp. 141-159.
• Özcan, Z. (ed) (2002) Nilüfer Göle ile Toplumun Merkezine Yolculuk (Istanbul: Ufuk Kita- pları).
• Postan, M. (1975) The Medieval Economy and Society (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson).
• Sayyid B. S. (1997) A Fundamental Fear: Eurocentrism and the Emergence of Islamism (London: Zed Books).
• So, A. Y. (1990) Social Change and Development: Modernization, Dependency, and World System Theories (London: Sage).
• Spybey, T. (1992) Social Change, Development and Dependency (Cambridge: Polity Press).
• Stark, R. (1999) “Secularizaiton, R.I.P.”, Sociology of Religion, 60 (3), pp. 249-273.
• Therborn, G. (1995) “Routes To/ Through Modernity” in Featherstone M. et al (eds.) Global Modernities (London: Sage), pp. 124 –139.
• Wagner, P. (1994) Sociology of Modernity Liberty and Discipline (London: Routledge).
• Wallerstein, I. (1990) "Culture as the Ideological Battleground of the Modern World Sys- tem", Theory, Culture and Society, 7, pp. 31-55.
• Weber, M. (1930) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (London: Allen and Unwin).
• Werner, K. F. (1988) "Political and Social Structures of the west, 300-1300" in Baechler, J. et al., (eds) Europe and the Rise of Capitalism (Oxford: Basil Blackwell), pp. 169-184.
• Wittrock, B. 2000 “Modernity One, None or Many? European Origins and Modernity as a Global Condition", Daedalus, 129 (1), pp. 31-60.
• Zakaria, F. (1994) “A Conversation with Lee Kuan Yew” ForeignAffairs, (73) (2), pp. 109- 126