AMERİKAN SİYASET BİLİMİNİN İDEOLOJİK İŞLEVSELLİĞİ: SİYASAL GELİŞME KAVRAYIŞI

Abstract

Siyasal gelişme kavrayışı İkinci Dünya Savaşı sonrasında, Amerikan siyaset bilimi içinde üretilmiş; ardından siyaset bilimi literatüründe hâkim bir konuma ulaşmıştır. 1970’lere kadar süren hâkimiyet Soğuk Savaş’ın belirleyiciliği altındaki tarihsel koşullarından bağımsız değildir. Bu tarihsel süreç içinde yaşanan sosyal bilimlerdeki kuramsal ve metodolojik değişimler Amerikan siyaset bilimi üzerinde kaçınılmaz olarak etkide bulunmuştur. Çalışmada, pozitivizmin öncülüğündeki söz konusu kuramsal ve metodolojik gelişmelerin bilimsellik vasfı sorgulanarak Amerikan siyaset bilimine yönelik eleştirel bir değerlendirilme yapılacaktır. Böylece Amerikan siyaset biliminin, tam da eleştirdiği boyutu ile ideolojik işlevsellik edindiğinin ortaya konması amaçlanmaktadır.

Keywords

• Amerikan Siyaset Bilimi,Pozitivizm,Soğuk Savaş,Siyasal Gelişme,İdeolojik İnşa

THE IDEOLOGICAL FUNCTIONALITY OF AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE: THE COMPREHENSION OF POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT

Abstract

The comprehension of political development was produced in the aftermath of World War II, particularly in American political science, and then achieved to have a dominant position in the extant literature. This dominant position, lasted until the 1970’s, is conditional to historical circumstances created by the Cold War. In this historical process, theoretical and methodological changes undergone in disciplines of social sciences heavily influenced American political science. In the study, it is aimed to make a critical evaluation towards American political science by questioning the theoretical and methodological perceptions, mostly developed under positivism. In conclusion it is argued that American political science has acquired a very functionality based on dimension which has been questioned by itself.

Keywords

• American Political Science,Positivism,Cold War,Political Development,Ideological Construction

References

1. Almond, G. A. (1966), Political Theory and Political Science, American Political Science Review, 60 (4). 869-879.
2. Almond, G. A. (1987), The Development of Political Development, M. Weiner ve S.P. Huntington içinde, Understanding Political Development (s.437-490), Boston: Little Brown.
3. Almond, G.A., Coleman, J. (1960), The Politics of the Developing Areas, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
4. Almond, G. A., Verba, S. (1965), The Civic Culture: The Poltical Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, Boston:Little Brown and Co.
5. Apter, D. E. (1955), The Gold Coast Transition, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
6. Apter, D. E. (1961), The Political Kingdom in Uganda: A Study in Bureaucratic Nationalism, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
7. Ball, T. (1993), American Political Science in Its Postwar Political Context. J. Farr., R. Seidelman içinde, Discipline and History: Political Science in the United States, (s. 207-221). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
8. Bell, D. (2001), On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the Fifties, with the Resumption of History in the New Century, New York: Free Press.

9. Binder, L. (1961), Religion and Politics in Pakistan, Berkeley, University of California Press.
10. Binder, L. vd. (1971), Crises and Sequences in Political Development, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
11. Bodenheimer, S. J.( 1970), The Ideology of Developmentalism: The American Paradim-Surrogate for Latin American Studies, Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 15, 95-137.
12. Chomsky, N. (1998), Soğuk Savaş Ve Üniversite, N. Chomsky içinde, Soğuk Savaş ve Üniversite (s.187-207), çev. Musa Ceylan, İstanbul: Kızılelma Yayıncılık.
13. Coleman, J. S. (1958), Nigeria: Background to Nationalism, Berkeley,University of California Press.
14. Coleman, J. S. (1965), Education and Political Development, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
15. Cumings, B. (2000), Sınır Kayması Soğuk Savaş Döneminde ve Sonrasında Bölge Araştırmaları ve Uluslararası Araştırmalar, C. Simpson içinde, çev. Musa Ceylan, Üniversiteler ve Amerikan İmparatorluğu (s.167-178), İstanbul: Kızılelma Yayıncılık.
16. Çelik, S. K. (2003), Marksizm, Pozitivizm ve Siyaset, B. Ünlü vd. içinde, Marksizm ve… (s. 193-206), Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
17. Dahl, R. A. (1961), The Behavioral Approach in Political Science: Epitaph for a Monument to a Successful Protest, The American Political Science Review, 55 (4), 763-772.
18. Diamond, S. (1992), Compromised Campus: The Collaboration of Universities with the Intelligence Community, New York: Oxford University Press.
19. Duroselle, J.B. (1952), Area Studies: Problems of Method, Unesco International Social Science Bulletin, 4 (4), 636-646.
20. Eagleton, T. (2005), İdeoloji Giriş, çev. Muttalip Özcan, İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
21. Easton, D. (2002), Political Science in the United States, D. Easton içinde, The Development of Political Science, A Comparative Survey, (s. 275-290). New York: Routledge.
22. Farr, J., Seidelman, R. (1993), Discipline and History: Political Science in the United States, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
23. Gendzier, I. L. (1985), Managing Political Change Social Scientist and the Third World, Boulder &London: Westview.
24. Gendzier, I. L. ( 1995), Development Against Democracy: Manipulating Political Change in the Third World, Washington: : Tyrone Press.
25. Gendzier, I. L. (2000), Tekrar Çal Sam Kalkınma Pratiği ve Savunusu, C. Simpson içinde, çev. Musa Ceylan, Üniversiteler ve Amerikan İmparatorluğu, (s. 85-116), İstanbul: Kızılelma Yayıncılık.
26. Giddens, A. (2001), Siyaset, Sosyoloji ve Toplumsal Teori, çev. Tuncay Birkan, İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
27. Grew, R. (1978), Crises of Political Development in Europe and the United States, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
28. Hallowell, J.H. (1944), Politics and Ethics, The American Political Science Review, 37 (4), 639-655.
29. Heindel, R. J. (1950), The Present Position Foreign Area Studies in the United States: A Post-Conference Report, New York: Social Science Research Council.
30. Higgott, R. A. (1983). Political Development Theory, Routledge: Croom Helm.
31. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/harrystrumandoctrine.html, Erişim tarihi: 05.02.2012.
32. Huntington, S. P. (1967), Siyasal Gelişme ve Siyasal Bozulma, çev., E. Özbudun, AÜHFD, 1(4), 55-107.
33. Huntington, S. P. (1969), Political Order in Changing Societies, 2. Basım, New Haven: Yale University Press.
34. Huntington, S. P. (1971), The Change to Change, Comparative Politics, (3) 3, 283-321.
35. Huntington, S. P., ve Dominguez, J. I. (1975), Siyasal Gelişme, Ankara: Türk Siyasi İlimler Derneği Yayınları.
36. Isaac, J. C. (1987), Power and Marxist Theory A Realist View, NewYork: Cornell University Press.
37. Kesaris, P. (1981), Documents of the National Security Council: First Supplement, Frederick: University Publications of America.
38. Kesselman, M. (1973), Order Or Movement? The Literature of Political Development as Ideology, World Politics, 26 (1), 139-154.
39. Kim, K. I. (1997), Genealogy of the Idiographic vs. the Nomothetic Disciplines, The Case of History and Sociology in the United States, Review, (20)3/4, 421- 464.
40. Köker, L. (2008), İki Farklı Siyaset, Bilgi Teorisi-Siyaset Bilimi İlişkileri Açısından Pozitivizm ve Eleştirel Teori, Ankara: Dipnot Yayınları.
41. La Palombara, J. (1963), Bureacuracy and Political Development, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
42. La Polambara, J. Ve Weiner, M. (1966), Political Parties and Political Development, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
43. Lambert R. ve. Barber, E. G. (1984), Beyond Growth, The Next Stage in Language and Area Studies, Washington: Association of American Universities.
44. Larrain, J. (1979), The Concept of Ideology, London: Hutchinson Publishing.
45. Lee, R. (2007), Karmaşıklık Çalışmaları, R. Lee ve I. Wallerstein içinde, çev. Aysun Babacan, İki Kültürü Aşmak (s. 244-261), İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
46. Leys, C. (1996), The Rise and Fall of Development Theory, Nairobi, Indianapolis ve London: EAEP.
47. Lipset, S. M. (1986), Siyasal İnsan, çev. Mete Tunçay, Ankara: Teori Yayınları.
48. Mclellan, D. (1999), İdeoloji, çev. Ercüment Özkaya, Ankara: Doruk Yayıncılık.
49. Miller, E.F. (1972), Positivism, Historicism and Political Inquiry, The American Political Science Review, 66 (3), 796-817.
50. Montes, A. L. (2007), Bölgesel Analiz Kategorileri: Latin/o Amerikancılıklar, R. Lee ve I. Wallerstein içinde, çev. Aysun Babacan, İki Kültürü Aşmak (s.207-232), İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
51. Morgenthau, H. J. (1952), Area Studies and the Study of International Relations, Unesco International Social Science Bulletin, (4) 4, 647-654.
52. NSC 129/1 (1986), United States Objectives and Policies with Respect to the Arab States and Israel, Foreign Relations of the Unites States 1952-1954, (9).
53. O’Brien, D. C. (1972), Modernization, Order and the Erosion of a Democratic Ideal: American Political Science 1960-70, Journal Of Development Studies, (8)2, 351-378.
54. Overseas Programs of Private Nonprofit American Organizations, Report No.3 (1965), Winning the Cold War: The U.S. Ideological Offensive, Subcommittee On International Organizations and Movements, Washington: H.Res. 84, 25 May.
55. Packenham R.A. (1973), Liberal America and Third World, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
56. Philip Mosely Papers, University of Illinois, box 13, Operations Research Office to Mosely, 28 Şubat 1949 ve box 18, Paul Langer to Mosely, 11 Mayıs 1953.
57. Preston, P.W. (1996). Development Theory An Introduction, Blackwell.
58. Price, H. B. (1955). The Marshall Plan and Its Meaning, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
59. Pye, L. (1963), Communications and Political Development, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
60. Pye, L., Verba S. (1965), Political Culture and Political Development, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
61. Pye, L. (1966), Aspects of Political Development, Boston, Toronto: Little Brown and Company.
62. Pye, L. (1975). The Confrontation between Discipline and Area Studies, L. Pye içinde, Political Science and Area Studies Rivals or Partners, (s. 3-22), Bloomington ve London: Indiana University Press.
63. Raymond, G. (1978) (Ed.). Crises of Political Development in Europe and the United States, Princeton:Princeton University Press.
64. Reisch, G.A. (2005), How the Cold War Transformed Philosophy To the Icy Slopes of Logic, New York: Cambridge University Press.
65. Rogowski, R. (1978), Review: Rationalist Theories of Politics: A Midterm Report, World Politics,30 (2), 296-323.
66. Ross, D. (1991), The Origins of American Social Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University.
67. Sandbrook, R. (1976) , The ‘Crisis’ in Political Development Theory, Journal of Development Studies, (12)2, 165-185.
68. Sarıbay, A. Y. (2000), Global Bir Bakışla Politik Sosyoloji, İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları.
69. Simpson, C. (2000), Üniversiteler, İmparatorluk ve Bilginin Üretimi. C. Simpson içinde, çev. Musa Ceylan, Üniversiteler ve Amerikan İmparatorluğu, (s. 19-38). İstanbul: Kızılelma Yayıncılık.
70. SSRC, (1950), Items, June.
71. SSRC, (1944-45), Annual Report Şaylan, G. (2002), Postmodernizm, Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
72. Tilly, C. (1975), The Formation of National Studies in Western Europe, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
73. Timur, T. (2000), Toplumsal Değişme Ve Üniversiteler, Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
74. Walker, J. L. (1966), A Critique of the Elitist Theory of Democracy, The American Political Science Review, 60 (2), 285-295.
75. Wallerstein, I. (1998), Alan Araştırmalarının Öngörülmeyen Sonuçları, Noam Chomsky içinde, çev. Musa Ceylan, Soğuk Savaş ve Üniversite, (s.209-243), İstanbul: Kızılelma Yayıncılık.
76. Ward, R. E., Rustow D. (1964), Political Modernization in Japan and Turkey, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
77. Zabcı, F. (1999), Liberalizm ve Siyasal Çoğulculuk: Klasik Çoğulculuğa Genel Bir Bakış, Mürekkep, (13), 215-234.
78. Zinn, H. (1998), Soğuk Savaş Döneminde Tarih Siyaseti. Noam Chomsky içinde, çev. Musa Ceylan, Soğuk Savaş ve Üniversite, (s. 65-98). İstanbul: Kızılelma Yayıncılık.
79. Zolberg, A. (1966), Creating Political Order: The Party-States of West America, Chicago: Chicago University Press.