KÜRESEL SİYASETİ VE LİDERLİĞİ YENİDEN DÜŞÜNMEK: ULRICH BECK’İN RİSK TOPLUMU KARŞISINDA POSTMODERN POLİTİKALAR

Yıl 2021, , 405 - 418, 23.05.2021

Vahit Güntay

https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.779156

Öz

Ulrich Beck, 1992 yılındaki risk toplumu kavramsallaştırması ve “Risk Topluluğu” adlı kitabıyla, postmodern dönemin risklerle bezenmiş bir sosyal yapı doğurduğunu iddia etmektedir. Esas olarak güven sorunundan kaynaklanan bu durum, aslında modernizm tarafından hazırlanan bireycilik ve kapitalizmin sessiz sloganının olduğu bir toplum modeli sunar. Öte yandan, 20. yüzyılın ortalarından beri yaygın olarak tartışılan postmodernizmin tanımlarında da fikir birliği yoktur. Bu yönüyle postmodernizmin; küreselleşme, tüketim, devletçi düzeylerde merkezi anlayışın değişmesi, bilginin metalaştırılması ve yaşam biçimindeki deformasyon gibi durumlara karşılık geldiğini söyleyebiliriz. Beck'in belirttiği gibi, sosyal kontrol mekanizmalarındaki sınırlamalar, modernizmin eski güç formundan gelenlerle beslenmektedir. Her toplumda farklı ölçeklerde görülebilen bu değişim artık daha hissedilir hale gelmektedir. Küreselleşme ve hareketlilik, eğitim ve iş yaşamının karmaşıklığı, siber alemin erozyonu ve hukuk mekanizması gibi konular bu değişimin tartışıldığı alanlardan sadece birkaçıdır. Bu çalışma bağlamında Ulrich Beck'in konseptinden yola çıkılarak, postmodernizm ve küresel politika anlayışındaki değişimin uluslararası politikadaki sürekliliği sağlayıp sağlayamayacağı yönündeki çerçeve tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Risk Toplumu, Modernizm, Postmodernizm, Politika, Küresel Politika

RETHINKING THE GLOBAL POLITICS AND LEADERSHIP: ULRICH BECK’S RISK SOCIETY VERSUS POSTMODERN POLITICS

Öz

Ulrich Beck, with the conceptualization of risk society and the book of the name “Risk Society” in 1992, claims that the postmodern era gave birth to a social structure adorned with risks. This situation, which arises mainly from the problem of trust, actually presents a model of society in which the silent motto of individualism and capitalism prepared by modernity. On the other hand, there is no consensus in the definitions of postmodernism, which is widely discussed concept since the mid-20th century. However, postmodernism corresponds to situations such as globalization, consumption, change of centralist understanding in-state levels, the commodification of knowledge, and deformation in lifestyle. Social control mechanisms ant the limitations, as Beck stated, nurture this belonging from their former strength. This melting state, which can be observed at different scales in each society, becomes more visible with some developments. Globalization and mobility, the complexity of education and business life, the erosion of the cyber realm and the mechanism of law are just a few of the areas underlined in the present trial. In the context of this study, Ulrich Beck's concept will be compared with postmodernism and the question of whether the change in global policy understanding will ensure the continuity of international politics and relations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Risk Society, Modernism, Postmodernism, Politics, Global Politics

Kaynakça

• Alexander, J. & Smith, P. (1996). “Social Science and Salvation: Risk Society as Mythical Discourse”, Zeitschrift Für Soziologie, 25/4, 251-262. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/23771807
• Aronowitz, S. (1987). “Postmodernism and Politics”, Social Text, 18, 99-115. doi:10.2307/488695
• Atkinson, E. (2002). “The Responsible Anarchist: Postmodernism and Social Change”, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23/1, 73-87. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/1393098
• Baudrillard, J. (1998). The Consumer Society, Myths and Structures, London: SAGE Publications.
• Baudrillard, J. (2007). In the Shadow of The Silent Majorities, Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).
• Bauman, Z. (1999). In Search of Politics, Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Bauman, Z. (2001). The Individualized Society, Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Bauman, Z. (2007). Modernity and Ambivalence, Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Beck, U. (1992a). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
• Beck, U. (1992b). World Risk Society, Cambridge: Polity Pres.
• Beck, U. (2000). What is Globalization? Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Beck, U. (2005). The Reinvention of Politics: Rethinking Modernity in The Global Social Order, Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Best, S. & Kellner, D. (1991). Postmodern Theory: Critical Interrogations, New York: The Gulford Press.
• Brocková, I. (2000). “Challenge of Globalization, American Dilemma”, Medzinárodné Otázky, 9/1, 5-27. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/44963299
• Candea, M. (2018). Comparison in Anthropology: The Impossible Method, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Cochran, M. (1995). “Postmodernism, Ethics and International Political Theory”, Review of International Studies, 21/3, 237-250. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/20097411
• Di Leo, J. (2001). “Whose Theory, Which Globalism? Notes on the Double Question of Theorizing Globalism and Globalizing Theory”, Symplokē, 9/1-2, 7-14. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/40550498
• Fotopoulos, T. (2001). “The Myth of Postmodernity. Democracy & Nature”, 7/1, 27-75. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10855660020045143
• Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Giddens, A. (1992). The Transformation of Intimacy, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Giroux, H. (1991). “Border Pedagogy and the Politics of Modernism/Postmodernism”, Journal of Architectural Education, 44/2, 69-79. doi:10.2307/1425099
• Goodchild, B. (1990). “Planning and the Modern/Postmodern Debate”, The Town Planning Review, 61/2, 119-137. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/40112887
• He, C. (2012). Modernization Science, Berlin: Springer.
• He, C. (2015, September 23). Religion, Culture and Cultural Modernization. Retrieved from http://en.modernization.ac.cn/document.action?docid=29939
• Heller, A. & Feher, F. (1988). The Postmodern Political Condition, Columbia: Columbia University Press.
• Hirst, P. & Thompson, G. (1999). Globalization in Question, Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Hobsbawm, E. (2008). Globalisation, Democracy and Terrorism, Boston: Little, Brown Book Group.
• Hogg, M. & Ridgeway, C. (2003). “Social Identity: Sociological and Social Psychological Perspectives”, Social Psychology Quarterly, 66/2, 97-100. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/1519841
• Hoy, T. (1993). “Derrida: Postmodernism and political Theory”, Philosophy & Social Criticism, 19/3-4, 243-260. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/019145379301900302
• Hutcheon, L. (1986). “The Politics of Postmodernism: Parody and History”, Cultural Critique, 5, 179-207. doi:10.2307/1354361
• Huyssen, A. (2006). “Introduction: Modernism after Postmodernity”, New German Critique, 99, 1-5. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/27669174
• Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, Durham: Duke University Press.
• Kellner, D. (2002). “Theorizing Globalization”, Sociological Theory, 20/3, 285-305. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/3108613
• Lash, S. & Urry, J. (1995). The End of Organized Capitalism, Oxford: Polity Press.
• Libman, B. (2019, November 4) Capital Realism, Ten Years On. Retrieved from http://politicsslashletters.org/commentary/capitalist-realism-ten-years-on/
• Lyotard, J. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
• Machida, S. (2012). “Does Globalization Render People More Ethnocentric? Globalization and People's Views on Cultures”, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 71/2, 436-469. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/23245230
• Marshall, B. (1999). “Globalisation, Environmental Degradation and Ulrich Beck's Risk Society”, Environmental Values, 8/2, 253-275. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/30301706
• Matthewman, S. & Hoey, D. (2006). “What Happened to Postmodernism?” Sociology, 40/3, 529-547. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/42856869
• Micewski, E. (2004). “The Education Of (Military) Leadership Personnel in A Postmodern World”, Connections, 3/1, 67-74. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/26323022
• Miller, T. (2014). Modernism and The Frankfurt School, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Mirchandani, R. (2005). “Postmodernism and Sociology: From the Epistemological to the Empirical”, Sociological Theory, 23/1, 86-115. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/4148895
• Mittelman, J. (2004). “What is Critical Globalization Studies?” International Studies Perspectives, 5/3, 219-230. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/44218323
• Moraru, C. (2001). “The Global Turn in Critical Theory”, Symplokē, 9/1-2, 74-82. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/40550501
• Perelman, M. (2015). “The Anarchy of Globalization: Local and Global, Intended and Unintended Consequences”, World Review of Political Economy, 6/3, 352-374. doi:10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.6.3.0352
• Reiner, R. (1992). “Policing a Postmodern Society”, The Modern Law Review, 55/6, 761-781. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/1096856
• Rosenau, P. M. (1992). Post-modernism and The Social Sciences, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Seethi, K. (2001). “Postmodernism, Neoliberalism and Civil Society: A Critique of the Development Strategies in the Era of Globalisation”, The Indian Journal of Political Science, 62/3, 307-320. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/42771344
• Soper, K. (1991). “Postmodernism and Its Discontents”, Feminist Review, 39, 97-108.
• Thompson, S. C. (2018). “Expanding Modernism: A Review of Peter Kalliney's Modernism in a Global Context”, Journal of Modern Literature, 41/2, 165-170.
• Turnbull, N. (2010). “Introduction: Postmodernism and Rationality”, Revue Internationale De Philosophie, 64/251-1, 5-7. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/23961019
• Tushnet, M. (1995). “Postmodernism and Democracy”, American Literary History, 7/3, 582-590. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/489853
• Van Loon, J. (2003). Risk and Technological Culture: Towards a Sociology of Virulence, London: Routledge.
• Williams, M. (2008). “(In)Security Studies, Reflexive Modernization and the Risk Society”, Cooperation and Conflict, 43/1, 57-79. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/45084567