Uluslararası İlişkiler Disiplininde ‘Batı-Dışı’ Amillik Tartışması ve Avrupa-Merkezcilik Eleştirisi

Yıl 2023, , 1 - 27, 31.12.2023

Neslihan Dikmen Alsancak

https://doi.org/10.14782/marmarasbd.1373695

Cited By: 1

Öz

‘Batı-dışı’ amillik Uluslararası İlişkiler disiplinindeki önemli eleştirel kavramlardan biridir. Bu çalışmanın amacı disiplinde 2000li yıllarda başlayan ve günümüzde Küresel Uluslararası İlişkiler oluşumunun önemli bileşenlerinden olan ‘Batı-dışı’ amillik tartışması yapmaktır. Bunu yaparken çalışma özellikle disipline getirilen Avrupa-merkezcilik eleştirisini temel çıkış noktası olarak alır ve disiplindeki önemli temel kuramlara, çalışmalara ve tarih-anlatılarına odaklanır. Bu Avrupa-merkezcilik eleştirisi Avrupa-merkezciliği modernitenin yapısal bir unsuru olarak ele alır ve epistemolojik bir problem olarak görür. Çalışmanın temel argümanı Batı-dışı amillik tartışmasının Batı’dan farklılık üzerinden bir alternatif arayışı üzerinden değil, disiplinde Avrupa-merkezciliğin yarattığı bu farklılık söylemi ve ikiliğinin ortaya çıkarılması için önemli olduğudur. Nitekim, bu farklılık söylemi hiyerarşik bir uluslararası anlayışını da birlikte üretmektedir. Bu tartışma günümüzde disiplinde Küresel Uluslararası İlişkiler anlayışının temel hatlarının ortaya konulması ve Türkiye’deki akademisyenler tarafından gelişmekte olan bu literatüre nasıl katkı sağlanabileceğinin tartışılması için önemlidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Avrupa-merkezcilik, Küresel Uluslararası İlişkiler, 'Batı-dışı' Amillik

Kaynakça

• Acharya, A. (1997). The Periphery as the Core: The Third World and Security Studies. K. Krause ve M. Williams (Yay. haz.), Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases içinde (s. 299-327). London: UCL Press.
• Acharya, A. (2014). Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds: A New Agenda for International Studies. International Studies Quarterly, 58( 4), 647–659.
• Acharya, A. (2016). Advancing Global IR: Challenges, Contentions and Contributions. International Studies Review, 18(1), 4-15.
• Acharya, A. (2018). Constructing Global Order: Agency and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Amin, S. (2009). Eurocentrism. New York: Monthly Review Press.
• Anievas, A. ve Nişancioğlu, K. (2015). How the West Came to Rule: The Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism. Pluto Press.
• Ashley, R. ve Walker, R.B.J. (1990). Introduction: Speaking the Language of Exile: Dissident Thought in International Studies. International Studies Quarterly, 34 (3), 367-416.
• Ayoob, M. (1997). Defining Security: A Subaltern Realist Perspective. K. Krause ve M. Williams (Yay. haz.), Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases içinde (s. 121-146). London: UCL Press.
• Barkawi, T. ve Laffey, M. (2001). Introduction: The International Relations of Democracy, Liberalism and War. T. Barkawi ve M. Laffey (Yay. haz.), Democracy, Liberalism and War: Rethinking the Democratic Peace Debate içinde (s. 1-23). Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
• Barkawi, T. ve Laffey, M. (2006). The Postcolonial Moment in Security Studies. Review of International Studies, 32(2), 329-352.
• Betts, R. K. (1994). Wealth, Power and Instability: East Asia and the United States after the Cold War. International Security, 18(3), 34-77.
• Bhambra, G. (2007). Rethinking Modernity: Postcolonialism and the Sociological Imagination. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Bhambra, G. (2011). Connected Sociologies. London: Bloomsbury Academic
• Bilgin, P. (2008). Thinking past ‘Western’ IR? Third World Quarterly, 29(1), 5-23.
• Bilgin, P. (2010). The Western-Centrism of Security Studies: Blind Spot or Constitutive Practice? Security Dialogue, 41(6), 615-622, https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010610388208
• Bilgin, P. (2016). The International in Security, Security in the International. London: Routledge.
• Bilgin, P. ve Çapan Z. G. (2021). Introduction to the Special Issue, Regional International Relations and Global Worlds: Globalising International Relations, Uluslararası İlişkiler, 18(70), 1-11.
• Biswas, S. (2001). ‘Nuclear Apartheid’ as Political Position: Race as a Postcolonial Recourse?’’ Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 26 (4), 485-522.
• Blaney, D. L. (2020). Where, when and what is IR? A. B. Tickner ve K. Smith (Yay. haz.) International Relations from the Global South: Worlds of Difference içinde (s. 38-55). Abingdon: Routledge.
• Buck-Morss, S. (2009). Hegel, Haiti and Universal History. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
• Chakrabarty, D. (2000) Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Chowdhry, G. ve Nair, S. (2002). (Yay. haz.) Power, Postcolonialism and International Relations: Reading race, gender and class, London: Routledge Press.
• Cox, R. W. (1981). Social Forces, State and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10(2), 126-155.
• Coronil, F. (1996). Beyond Occidentalism: Toward Nonimperial Geohistorical Categories. Cultural Anthropology, 11(1), 51-87. Danewid, I. (2017). White Innocence in the Black Mediterranean: Hospitality and the Erasure of History. Third World Quarterly, 38(7), 1674-1689. David, S. R. (1993). Why the Third World Still Matters. International Security, 17(3), 127-159. Desch, M. C. (1989). The Keys that Lock Up the World: Identifying American Interests in the Periphery. International Security, 14(1), 86-121. Dikmen-Alsancak, N. (2021). Yapı, Buğra Sarı and İsmail Erkam Sula (Yay. Haz.). Kuramsal Perspektiften Uluslararası İlişkiler Kavramları içinde (s. 177-213). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık. Doyle, M. W. (1993). Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12(3), 205-235.
• Der Derian J. ve Shapiro, M. J. (1989) (Yay. haz.). International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics. Toronto: Lexington Books, foreword.
• Gong, G. W. (1984). The Standard of ‘Civilisation’ in International Society. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Gregory, D. U. (1989). Textualizing Global Politics. J. Der Derian ve M. J. Shapiro (Yay. haz.). International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics içinde (foreword). Toronto: Lexington Books.
• Grovogui, S. Z. (2006). Beyond Eurocentrism and Anarchy: Memories of International Order and Institutions. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
• Grovogui, S. Z. (2011). A revolution nonetheless: the Global South in International Relations. The Global South 5(1), Special Issue: The Global South and World Dis/Order, 175-190, https://doi.org/10.2979/globalsouth.5.1.175
• Goldgeier, J. M., ve McFaul, M. (1992). A Tale of Two Worlds: Core and Periphery in the Post-Cold War Era. International Organization, 46(2), 469-491.
• Halperin, S. (2006). International Relations Theory and the Hegemony of Western Conceptions of Modernity. B. Gruffydd Jones (Yay. haz.) Decolonizing International Relations içinde (s. 43-63). Lanham: Rowman and the Littlefield.
• Hobson, J. M. (2004). The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hobson, J. M. (2012). The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hobson, J. M. (2013). The other side of the Westphalian Frontier. S. Seth (Yay. haz.) Postcolonial Theory and International Relations: A Critical Introduction içinde (s. 32-48). Abingdon: Routledge.
• Hobson, J.M. (2020). Globalization. A. B. Tickner ve K. Smith (Yay. haz.) International Relations from the Global South: Worlds of Difference içinde (s. 221-239). Abingdon: Routledge.
• Hobson, J. M. ve Sajed, A. (2017). Navigating Beyond the Eurofetishist Frontier of Critical IR Theory: Exploring the Complex Landscapes of Non-Western Agency. International Studies Review, 19 (4), 547-572, https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/vix013 Hoffmann, S. (1977). An American Social Science: International Relations. Daedalus, 106 (3), 41-60. Inayatullah, N. ve Blaney, David L. (2004). International Relations and the Problem of Difference. New York: Routledge.
• Jabri, V. (2013). The Postcolonial Subject: Claiming Politics/Governing Others in late modernity. Abingdon: Routledge.
• Jahn, B. (2000). The Cultural Construction of International Relations. New York: Palgrave.
• Korany, B. (1986). Strategic Studies and the Third World: A critical evaluation. International Social Science Journal, 38 (4), 547-562. Lawrence, A. (2010). Triggering Nationalist Violence: Competition and Conflict in Uprisings against Colonial Rule. International Security, 35(2), 88-122.
• Loomba, A. (2005). (İkinci Baskı) Colonialism/Postcolonialism. London, New York: Routledge Lindio-McGovern, L. (2007). Neo-liberal globalization in the Philippines: Its impact on Filipino Women and their forms of resistance. Journal of Developing Societies, 23(1-2), 15-35, https://doi.org/10.1177/0169796X0602300202
• Ling, L.M.H. (2002). Postcolonial International Relations: Conquest and Desire Between Asia and the West. New York: Palgrave.
• Mamdani, M. (2020). Neither Settler Nor Native: The Making and Unmaking of Permanent Minorities, Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
• Mohanty, Chandra, T. (2003). Feminism without Borders-Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity. Duke University Press.
• Morgenthau, Hans J. (1948). Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
• Pasha, M. K. (2011). Untimely Reflections. R. Shilliam (Yay. haz.). International Relations and non-Western Thought içinde (s. 217-226). Abingdon: Routledge.
• Pasha, M. K. (2016). The Bandung Within. Quỳnh N. Phạm ve R. Shilliam (Yay. haz.) Meanings of Bandung içinde (s. 201-209). London: Rowman and Littlefield International.
• Russett, B. (1993). Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. Pantheon Books.
• Schoultz, L. (1987). National Security and United States Policy towards Latin America. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Shani, G. (2008). Toward a Post-Western IR: The “Umma,” “Khalsa Panth,” and Critical International Relations Theory. International Studies Review, 10(4), 722–734.
• Shilliam, R. (2011). What We (Should Have) Talked about at ISA: Poststructural and Postcolonial Thought. http://thedisorderofthings.com/2011/04/24/what-we-should-have-talked-about-at-isa-poststructural-and-postcolonial-thought/ (erişim: 11 Mayıs 2023)
• Shilliam, R. (2017). Race and Revolution at Bwa Kayiman. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 45(3), 269-292, https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829817693692
• Sorensen, G. (2005). State Transformation and New Security Dilemma Globalization. E. Aydınlı ve J. N. Rosenau (Yay. haz.). Security and Nation- State: Paradigm in Transition içinde (s. 81-98). Albany: State University of New York Press. Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the Subaltern speak? Cary Nelson ve Lawrence Grossberg (Yay. Haz.) Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture içinde (s. 24-28). London: Macmillan. Subrahmanyam, S. (1997). Connected Histories: Notes Towards a reconfiguration of early Modern Eurasia. Modern Asian Studies, 31(3), 735-762. Theisen, O. M, Holterman, H. ve Buhaug, H. (2011). Climate Wars? Assessing the Claim that Drought Breeds Conflict. International Security, 36(3), 79-106.
• Troulliot, M.R. (1995). Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History. Boston: Beacon Press.
• True, J. (2009). Feminism. S. Burchill ve diğerleri (Yay. haz.) Theories of International Relations içinde (s. 237-259). Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Walt, S. M. (1987). Origins of Alliances. London: Cornell University Press. Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Walker, R. B. J. (1993). Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Weber, H. ve Winanti, P. (2016). The ‘Bandung spirit’ and solidarist internationalism. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 70(4), 391-406, https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2016.1167834