ULUSLARARASI İLİŞKİLER KURAMLARINDA KİMLİK

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 11 Sayı: Özel Sayı, 48 - 74, 31.12.2023

Selin Türkeş

https://doi.org/10.14782/marmarasbd.1376357

Öz

Bu çalışma, Uluslararası İlişkiler disiplini içinde 'kimlik' kavramının bir kuramsal kavram ve analitik kategori olarak nasıl ele alındığını değerlendirme amacını taşırken, aynı zamanda akademik kimlik tartışmalarına daha derinlemesine bir bakış sunmayı hedeflemektedir. Bu bağlamda, uluslararası ilişkiler alanında 'kimlik' kavramının farklı kuramsal yaklaşımlar tarafından nasıl ele alındığına, bu yaklaşımların zaman içinde nasıl evrildiğine ve disiplinin gelişimine nasıl katkı sağladığına dair bir inceleme sunmaktadır. Çalışma, bu amaçlar doğrultusunda geleneksel uluslararası ilişkiler kuramları (klasik realizm, klasik liberalizm, neorealizm, neoliberalizm), öznelerarası yaklaşımlar (geleneksel yapılandırmacılık, İngiliz Okulu) ve eleştirel kuramların (eleştirel yapısalcılık, post-yapısalcılık, feminizm) 'kimlik' kavramını hem kavramsal hem de metodolojik açıdan nasıl ele aldığını ayrıntılı bir şekilde incelemektedir. Geleneksel kuramlar, kimliği genellikle devletlerin dış politika tercihlerini şekillendiren istikrarlı ve sabit bir faktör olarak ele alırken, öznelerarası yaklaşımlar kimliği daha esnek ve değişken bir yapı olarak görme eğilimindedir. Öte yandan eleştirel kuramlar ise kimliği hakim güç ilişkileri içinde performatif bir eylem olarak vurgularlar. Makale, bu yaklaşımların 'kimlik'le ilgili özgün argümanlarını sunmakta ve bu argümanların uluslararası ilişkiler disiplinine nasıl katkıda bulunduğunu örneklerle açıklamaktadır. Bu kuramsal değerlendirme, 'kimlik' kavramının uluslararası ilişkilerin temel dinamiklerini nasıl şekillendirdiğini anlamak için farklı kuramsal yaklaşımların sunduğu çeşitli araştırma sorularını ve yöntemlerini değerlendirerek, kimlik çalışmalarının disiplin içindeki önemini ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

kimlik, eleştirel yaklaşımlar, ontoloji, epistemoloji, identity, theory, kuram, ontology, critical approaches, epistemology

Kaynakça

• Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the middle ground: Constructivism in world politics. European Journal of International Relations (C. 3). doi:10.1177/1354066197003003003
• Adler, E. (2005). Barry Buzan’s use of constructivism to reconstruct the English School: “Not all the way down”. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 34(1), 171–182. doi:10.1177/03058298050340011701
• Ağcan, M. A. (2014). Sosyal Bilimler Felsefesi ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorisi. E. Balta (Ed.), Küresel Siyasete Giriş: Uluslararası İlişkilerde Kavramlar, Teoriler, Süreçler içinde (ss. 77–109). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
• Arat, Z. F. K. (2015). Feminisms, Women’s Rights, and the UN: Would Achieving Gender Equality Empower Women? American Political Science Review, 109(4), 674–689. doi:10.1017/S0003055415000386
• Arkan, Z. (2014). ‘Via Media’ vs. the Critical Path: Constructivism(s) and the Case of EU Identity. All Azimuth, 3(2), 21–36.
• Aydın-Düzgit, S. (2015). Post-Yapısalcı Yaklaşımlar ve Uluslararası İlişkilerin Temel Kavramları. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 12(46), 152–168. doi:10.33458/uidergisi.463032
• Bellamy, A. J. ve McDonald, M. (2004). Securing international society: Towards an English School discourse of security. Australian Journal of Political Science, 39(2), 307–330. doi:10.1080/1036114042000238537
• Berenskoetter, F. (2017). Identity in International Relations. The International Studies Encyclopedia, VI(December), 3594–3611.
• Bull, H. (1977). The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London: MacMillan.
• Butler, J. (2010). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York, Oxon: Rou. doi:10.4324/9780429440731-3
• Buzan, B. (1993). From international system to international society: Structural realism and regime theory meet the English school. International Organization, 47(3), 327–352. doi:10.1017/S0020818300027983
• Buzan, B., Waever, O. ve Wilde, J. de. (1998). Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
• Campbell, D. (1998). Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Checkel, J. T. (1999). Norms , Institutions, and National Identity in Contemporary Europe. International Studies Quarterly, 43(1), 83–114.
• Devlen, B. ve Özdamar, Ö. (2010). Uluslararası İlişkilerde İngiliz okulu kuramı: Kökenleri, Kavramları ve Tartışmaları. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 7(25), 43–68.
• Dikmen Alsancak, N. (2021). Kuram ve Pratik İlişkisi. B. Sarı ve İ. E. Sula (Ed.), Kuramsal Perspektiften Temel Uluslararası İliişkiler Kavramları içinde (ss. 41–74). İstanbul: Nobel.
• Doty, R. L. (1996). Imperial Encounters. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199584727.003.0002
• Dunne, T., Kurki, M. ve Smith, S. (2013). English School. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity içinde (ss. 132–152). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Enloe, C. (1991). Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. The American Political Science Review. University of California Press. doi:10.2307/1962955
• Enloe, C., Koch, S., Tongier, B., Wright, L.-M. ve Martinez, J. (2006). Interview with Cynthia Enloe. Social Thought and Research, 27, 27–41.
• Epstein, C. (2011). Who speaks? Discourse, the subject and the study of identity in international politics. European Journal of International Relations, 17(2), 327–350. doi:10.1177/1354066109350055
• Epstein, C. (2013). Constructivism or the eternal return of universals in International Relations. Why returning to language is vital to prolonging the owl’s flight. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 499–519. doi:10.1177/1354066113494669
• Fearon, J. D. (1994). Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes. The American Political Science Review, 88(3), 577–592.
• Fearon, J. D. (1997). Signaling foreign policy interests: Tying hands versus sinking costs. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(1), 68–90. doi:10.1177/0022002797041001004
• Finnemore, M. ve Sikkink, K. (1998). International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917.
• Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (Second Edi.). New York: Vintage Books.
• Gilpin, R. (1981). War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Haas, E. B. (1961). International Integration : The European and the Universal Process. International Organization, 15(3), 366–392.
• Hansen, L. (2006). Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. London: Routledge.
• Huntington, S. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster.
• Inayatullah, N. ve Blaney, D. L. (1996). Knowing Encounters: Beyond Parochialism in International Relations Theory. Y. Lapid ve F. Kratochwil (Ed.), The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory içinde (ss. 65–84). Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
• Jepperson, R. L., Wendt, A. ve Katzenstein, P. J. (1996). Norms, Identity, and Culture in National Security. P. J. Katzenstein (Ed.), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics içinde (ss. 33–75). New York: Columbia University Press.
• Jervis, R. (1994). Hans Morgenthau, Realism, and the Scientific Study of International Politics. Social Research, 61(4), 853–876.
• Kardaş, T. ve Erdağ, R. (2019). Postyapısalcılık ve Uluslararası İlişkiler. R. Gözen (Ed.), Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri içinde (ss. 415–440). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
• Katzenstein, P. J. (1996). Introduction: Alternative Perspectives on National Security. The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics içinde (ss. 1–15). Columbia: Columbia University Press.
• Katzenstein, P. J., Keohane, R. O. ve Krasner, S. D. (1998). International Organization and the Study of World Politics. International Organization, 52(4), 645–685.
• Kazi, H. (1986). The Beginning of a Debate Long Due: Some Observations on “Ethnocentrism and Socialist-Feminist Theory”. Feminist Review, 1(22), 87–91. doi:10.2307/1394940
• Keohane, Robert; Axelrod, R. (1985). Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy : Strategies and Institutions. World Politics, 38(1), 226–254.
• Keohane, R. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
• Kratochwil, F. (1993). The embarrassment of changes: Neo-realism as the science of realpolitik without politics. Review of International Studies, 19(1), 63–80. doi:10.1017/S0260210500117346
• Kratochwil, F. (1996). Is the Ship of Culture at Sea or Returning? The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory içinde (ss. 201–222). Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
• Lapid, Y. ve Kratochwil, F. (Ed.). (1996). The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory. Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
• Locher, B. ve Priigl, E. (2001). Feminism: Constructivism’s Other Pedigree. K. M. Fierke ve K. E. Jorgensen (Ed.), Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation içinde .
• Luleci, C. ve Sula, I. E. (2016). Survival ‘Beyond Positivism?’ The Debate on Rationalism and Reflectivism in International Relations Theory. Politikon: IAPSS Journal of Political Science, 30(July), 43–55. doi:10.22151/politikon.30.3
• Mcewan, C. (2001). Postcolonialism, feminism and development: Intersections and dilemmas. Progress in Development Studies, 1(2), 93–111. doi:10.1177/146499340100100201
• Mearsheimer, J. J. (1994). The False Promise of International Institutions. International Security, 19(3), 5–49.
• Morgenthau, H. (1982). In Defense of the National Interest: A Critical Examination of American Foreign. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
• Morgenthau, H. (1997). Politics Among Nations The Struggle for Power and Peace - Revised by Kennety W. Thompson. Beijing: Peking University Press.
• Narayan, U. (1997). Dislocating Cultures: Identities, Traditions and Third World Feminism. Traditions, and Third Woiid. New York, London: Routledge. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Dislocating+Cultures+Identities#1 adresinden erişildi.
• Neumann, I. B. (1996). Self and other in international relations. European Journal of International Relations, 2(2), 139–174.
• Onuf, N. G. (2013). Making Sense, Making Worlds: Constructivism in social theory and international relations. Making Sense, Making Worlds: Constructivism in Social Theory and International Relations. doi:10.4324/9780203096710
• Pateman, C. (1988). The Sexual Contract. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
• Risse-Kappen, T. (1994). Ideas do not float freely: Transnational coalitions, domestic structures, and the end of the cold war. International Organization, 48(2), 185–214. doi:10.1017/S0020818300028162
• Risse-Kappen, T. (1995). Democratic Peace — Warlike Democracies?: A Social Constructivist Interpretation of the Liberal Argument. European Journal of International Relations, 1(4), 491–517. doi:10.1177/1354066195001004005
• Rosamond, B. (2005). The uniting of Europe and the foundation of EU studies: Revisiting the neofunctionalism of Ernst B. Haas. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(2), 237–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760500043928
• Rumelili, B. (2004). Constructing identity and relating to difference: understanding the EU’s mode of differentiation. Review of International Studies, 30(01), 27–47. doi:10.1017/S0260210504005819
• Rumelili, B. (2014). Kimlik. Ş. Kardaş ve A. Balcı (Ed.), Uluslararası İlişkilere Giriş: Tarih, Teori, Kavram, Konu içinde . İstanbul: Küre Yayınları.
• Rumelili, B. ve Adisönmez, U. C. (2020). A new paradigm on the identity-security nexus in international relations: Ontological security theory. Uluslararasi Iliskiler, 17(66), 23–39. doi:10.33458/uidergisi.720630
• Russett, B. (1993). Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post Cold War World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Russett, B., Layne, C., Spiro, D. E. ve Doyle, M. W. (1995). The Democratic Peace. International Security, 19(4), 164–184.
• Sandholtz, W., & Sweet, A. S. (1999). European integration and supranational governance revisited: Rejoinder to branch and Øhrgaard. Journal of European Public Policy, 6(1), 144–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/135017699343847
• Sarı, B. (2021). Güç. B. Sarı ve İ. E. Sula (Ed.), Kuramsal Perspektiften Temel Uluslararası İliişkiler Kavramları içinde (ss. 107–136). Ankara: Nobel.
• Sjursen, H. (2002). Why Expand?: The Question of Legitimacy and Justification in the EU’s Enlargement Policy. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(3), 491–513. doi:10.1111/1468-5965.00366
• Sula, İ. E. (2021). Bilim, Yöntem ve Kuram. B. Sarı ve İ. E. Sula (Ed.), Kuramsal Perspektiften Temel Uluslararası İliişkiler Kavramları içinde (ss. 1–40). Istanbul: Nobel.
• Süleymanoğlu-Kürüm, R. ve Cin, F. M. (2021). Introduction: Why Gender and the EU? R. Süleymanoğlu-Kürüm ve F. M. Cin (Ed.), Feminist Framing of Europeanisation: Gender Equality Policies in Turkey and the EU içinde (ss. 3–18). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Sylvester, C. (1994). Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Tickner, J. A. (1996). Identity in International Relations Theory: Feminist Perspectives. Y. Lapid ve F. Kratochwil (Ed.), The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory içinde (ss. 147–162). Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
• True, J. (2005). Feminism. A. J. Bellamy (Ed.), International Society and its Critics içinde (ss. 151–162). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Urrestarazu, U. S. (2015). ‘Identity’ in International Relations and Foreign Policy Theory. Theorizing Foreign Policy in a Globalized World, 126–149. doi:10.1057/9781137431912_7
• Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley Series in Political Science.
• Weldes, J. (1996). Constructing national interests. European Journal of International Relations, 2(3), 275–318. doi:10.1177/1354066196002003001
• Weldes, J. ve Saco, D. (1996). Making State Action Possible: The United States and the Discursive Construction of “The Cuban Problem”, 1960-1994. Millennium - Journal of International Studies, 25(2), 361–395. doi:10.1177/03058298960250020601
• Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425.
• Wendt, A. (1994). Collective Identity Formation and the International State. The American Political Science Review, 88(2), 384–396.
• Wendt, A. (1995). Constructing International Politics. International Security, 20(1), 71–81.
• Wendt, A. (1996). Identity and Structural Change in International Politics. Y. Lapid ve F. Kratochwil (Ed.), The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory içinde (ss. 47–64). Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
• Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511612183
• Wight, M. (1977). Systems of States. Leicester: Leicester University Press.
• Williams, M. (2004). Why Ideas Matter in International Relations: Hans Morgenthau, Classical Realism, and the Moral Construction of Power Politics. International Organization, 58(4), 633–665.
• Zehfuss, M. (2001). Constructivism and Identity: A Dangerous Liaison. European Journal of International Relations, 7(3), 315–348.