From Culture Areas to Regions: Regionalism of Human Societies per Anthropology and Geography

Öz

Regionalism, such as the Middle East, the Mediterranean, Europe, and Latin America, which is common in the social sciences and brings specialization, is occasionally subject to criticism from various perspectives. The conceptualizations that define the content of these regions and the way in which they are characterized have been greatly influenced by social and cultural anthropology. This paper evaluates the “tradition of regionalization” found in a wide range of disciplines ranging from history to international relations, taking advantage of theoretical and conceptual criticisms of social and cultural anthropology, which is believed to have played a large part in its establishment, especially since the 1970s. The role of geography in the field of anthropology during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is also discussed. Due to the topic's broad historical and geographical scope, the argument focuses on the regionalization of the “Middle East”, “Mediterranean”, and “Europe”, specifically in the context of Türkiye and its neighboring areas. As a result, this attempt to limit and explain in anthropology, which appears to be geographical, is a concern for understanding and explaining, that overlaps with current politics. Therefore, there is a tendency toward stagnant conceptualizations that can lead to images, stereotypes and stigmata relating to regions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Regionalism
• Culture Area
• Anthropology
• Geography
• Culture.

Kültür Alanlarından Bölgelere: İnsan Topluluklarının Antropoloji ve Coğrafya Eliyle Bölgelendirilmesi

Öz

Sosyal bilimlerin genelinde yaygın olan ve uzmanlaşmayı da beraberinde getiren Ortadoğu, Akdeniz, Avrupa, Latin Amerika gibi bölgelendirmeler, farklı açılardan zaman zaman eleştirilir. Sosyal ve kültürel antropoloji, bu bölgelerin çizilmesinde ve onların içeriğini belirleyen kavramsallaştırmalarda etkili olmuştur. Bu nedenle bu makale, tarihten uluslararası ilişkilere kadar geniş bir disiplin ağında yerleşik olan “bölgelendirme geleneğini” bunun yerleşmesinde geniş bir payı olduğu düşünülen sosyal ve kültürel antropolojinin, özellikle 1970’lerden itibaren gelişmesinde de etkili olan kuramsal ve kavramsal eleştirilerden yararlanarak değerlendirmektedir. Bu bağlamda coğrafyanın, on dokuzuncu ve yirminci yüzyıllarda antropoloji içindeki rolü de ele alınmaktadır. Konunun tarihsel ve coğrafi açıdan hayli geniş bir alanı içermesi nedeniyle tartışma zemini, Türkiye ve çevresi bağlamında oluşturulmakta, “Ortadoğu”, “Akdeniz” ve “Avrupa” bölgelendirmelerine odaklamaktadır. Sonuç olarak antropolojideki coğrafi nitelikli görünen bu sınırlandırma ve açıklama çabası, dönemin güncel siyasetiyle örtüşen, bir anlama ve anlatma kaygısıdır. Ancak sabit kavramsallaştırmalar üzerinden bölgelere ilişkin imgelere, stereotiplere ve damgalamalara dönüşebilecek bir eğilim de söz konusudur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bölgelendirme
• Kültür Alanı
• Antropoloji
• Coğrafya
• Kültür.

Destekleyen Kurum

Bu çalışma için herhangi bir kurum ve kuruluştan destek alınmamıştır.

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma için etik kurul belgesi gerekmemektedir.

Kaynakça

1. ABU-LUGHOD, Lila (2002). “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others”, American Anthropologist, C.104, S. 3, s. 783-790.
2. ALBERA, Dionigi (2006). “Anthropology of the Mediterranean: Between crisis and renewal”, History and Anthropology, C.17, S. 2, s. 109–133.
3. ANDERSEN, Benedict (1993). Hayali Cemaatler: Milliyetçiliğin Kökenleri ve Yayılması. (çev.: İ. Savaşır), İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
4. APPADURAI, Arjun (1986). “Theory in Anthropology: Center and Periphery”, Comparative Studies in Society and History, C.2, S. 28, s. 356-361.
5. BARNARD, Alan (2004). History and Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. BAYAT, Asef (2006). Ortadoğu’da Maduniyet. (der. ve çev.: Ö. Gökmen, S. Deren), İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
7. BARTH, Fredrick (2001). Giris. Etnik Gruplar ve Sınırları. (ed. F. Barth), (çev.: A. Kaya, S. Gürkan), İstanbul: Bağlam Yayınları. s. 11-40.
8. BOAS, Franz (1896). “The Limitations of the Comparative Method of Anthropology”, Science, New Series, C.103, S. 4, s. 901-908.

9. BOAS, Franz (2015). “Coğrafya Bilimi: Tarihsel Yöntem-Fiziksel Yöntem Tartışması”, (haz.: S. Altuntek; çev.: E. Boz), Yöntembilim Üzerine Antropolojik Okumalar Ankara: Dipnot Yayınları. s. 13-25
10. BOUCHARD, Canstance B. (2001). “The Medieval Heritage”, Encyclopedia of European Social History from 1350 to 2000 Vol.1. (ed., P. N. Stearns), Charles Scribner’s Sons. s. 131-141.
11. BOZARSLAN, Hamit (2010). Ortadoğu: Bir Şiddet Tarihi- Osmanlı Imparatorluğu’nun Sonundan El-Kaide’ye. (çev.: A. Berktay), İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
12. BRAUDEL, Fernand (2002). Memory and the Mediterranean. Vintage Books.
13. BROOMBERGER, Christian (2006). “Towards an Anthropology of the Mediterranean”, History and Anthropology, S. 2, C.17, s. 91–107.
14. BUNZL, Matti (1996). “Franz Boas and the Humboldtian Tradition: From Volkgeist and Nationalcharakter to an Anthropological Concept of Culture”, Volkgeist as method and ethic: Essays on Boasian ethnography and the German anthropological tradition. (ed. G. W. Stocking Jr.), The University of Wisconsin. s. 17-78.
15. CAMPBELL, John K. (1974). Honour, Family and Patronage: A Study of Institutions and Moral Values in a Greek Mountain Community. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16. CHEHABI, Houchang E., Peyman Jafari, Maral Jerroudi (eds.), (2015). Iran in the Middle East: Transnational Encounters and Social History. London: I.B. Tauris.
17. COLE, John (1977). “Anthropology Comes Part-Way Home: Community Studies in Europe”, Annual Reviews of Anthropology, S. 6, s. 349-378.
18. DAVIS, John (1977). People of Mediterranean: An Essay in Comparative Social Anthropology. London: Routledge.
19. DEMİRTAŞ, Erdem (2013). Ortadoğu’da Devlet ve İktidar. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
20. de PINA-CABRAL, João (1989). “The Mediterranean as a Category of Regional Comparison: A Critical View”, Current Anthropology, S. 30, s. 399-406.
21. DONNAN, H. Hastings ve Thomas Wilson (2002). Sınırlar: Kimlik, Ulus ve Devletin Uçları. (çev.: Z. Yaş) Ankara: Ütopya Yayınları.
22. DRIESSEN, Henk (2005). “Mediterranean Port Cities: Cosmopolitanism Reconsidered”, History and Anthropology, S. 16, C.1, s. 129-141.
23. EICKELMAN, Dale F. (2002). The Middle East and Central Asia: An Anthropological Approach. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
24. ENTESSAR, Nadar (2010). Kurdish Politics in the Middle East. Maryland: Lexington Books.
25. ERIKSEN, Thomas Hyland ve F. S. Nielsen (2011). Antropoloji Tarihi. (çev.: A. Bora), İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
26. FERNEA, Robert A. and M. James Malarkey (1975). “Anthropology of the Middle East and North Africa: A Critical Assessment”, Annual Review of Anthropology, S.4, s. 183-206.
27. FONTANA, Joseph (2003). Çarpıtılmış Geçmişe Ayna: Avrupa’nın Yeniden Yorumlanması. (çev.: N. Elhüseyni), İstanbul: Literatür Yayınları.
28. GALT, Anthony H. (1985). “Does the Mediterraneanist Dilemma Have Straw Horns?”, American Ethnologist, S. 2, C.12, s. 369-371.
29. GILMORE, David (1987). Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean. American Anthropological Association.
30. GODDARD, Victoria A., Josep R. Llobera, Cris Shore (1994). “Introduction: The Anthropology of Europe”, The Anthropology of Europe: Identity and Boundaries in Conflict. (eds. V. A. Goddard, J. R. Llobera, C. Shore), London: Berg. s. 1-40.
31. GUPTA, Akhil and James Ferguson (1997). “Discipline and Practice: “The field” As Site, Method, and Location in Anthropology”, Anthropological Locations: Boundaries and Grounds of a Field Science. (eds. A. Gupta and J. Ferguson), Berkeley: University of California Press. S. 1-46.
32. GUYER, Jane I. (2004). “Anthropology in Area Studies”, Annual Review of Anthropology, S.33, s. 499-523.
33. HANNERZ, Ulf (2003). “Being There... and There... and There! Reflections on Multi-Site Ethnography”, Ethnography S.2, C.4, s. 201-216.
34. HERZFELD, Michael (1984). “The Horns of the Mediterraneanist Dilemma”, American Ethnologist, S. 3, C.11, s. 439- 454.
35. HERZFELD, Michael (1985). “Of Horns and History: The Mediterraneanist Dilemma Again”, American Ethnologist, S. 4, C.12, s. 778-780.
36. HODGSON, Marshall G. S. (1974). The Venture of Islam, Volume 1: The classical age of Islam, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
37. JORDAN, Terry (1996). The European Cultural Area: A Systematic Geography, NY: Harper Collins Collage Publishers.
38. JOSEPH, Suad (2015). “Theory and Thematics in the Anthropology of the Middle East”, A Companion to the Anthropology of the Middle East. (ed. S. Altorki), West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons., s. 15-39.
39. KANDIYOTI, Deniz (2015). “Enduring Concerns, Resilient Tropes and New Departures: Reading the Companion”, A Companion to the Anthropology of the Middle East, (ed. S. Altorki), West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons., s. 3-14.
40. KHOURY, Philip S. and Joseph Kostiner (eds.), (1990). Tribes and State Formation in the Middle East, Berkley: University of California Press.
41. KROEBER, Alfred Lewis (1939). Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 38. California: University of California Press.
42. KÜRTI, László. (1996). “Homecoming: Affairs of Anthropologists in and of Eastern Europe”, Anthropology Today, S. 12, C.3, s. 11-15.
43. LEAL, João. (1999). “Mapping Mediterranean Portugal: Pastoral and Counter-Pastoral”, Proceedings of the Conference “Where Does the Mediterranean Begin? Mediterranean Anthropology from Local Perspectives,” Narodna Umjetnost (Croatian Journal of Ethnology and Folklore Research) (ed. J. Capo-Zmegac), C.1, S. 36, s. 9-31.
44. LEDERMAN, Rena (1998). “Globalization and the Future of Culture Areas: Melanesianist Anthropology in Transition”, Annual Review of Anthropology, S. 27, s. 427–449.
45. LEDERMAN, Rena (2008). “Anthropological Regionalism”, A New History of Anthropology, (ed. H. Kuklick), London: Blackwell Publishing, s. 310-325.
46. LEWIS, Bernard (2015). Ortadoğu: Hıristiyanlığın Başlangıcından Günümüze Ortadoğu’nun İki Bin Yıllık Tarihi. (çev.: S. Y. Kölay), Ankara: Arkadaş Kitabevi.
47. LEWIS, Martin E. and Kären Wigen (1997). The Myth of the Continents: A Critique of Metageography. Berkley: The University of California Press.
48. LINDHOLM, Charles. (2004). İslami Ortadoğu: Tarihsel Antropoloji. (çev.: B. Şafak), Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
49. LOIZOS, Peter and E. Papataxiarchis (eds.). (1991). Contested Identities: Gender and Kinship in Modern Greece. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
50. LYMAN, R. Lee and Michael J. O'Brien (2003). “Cultural Traits: Units of Analysis in Early Twentieth-Century Anthropology”, Journal of Anthropological Research, C.2, S. 59, s. 225-250.
51. MACDONALD, Sharon (1996). “Europe, Western” D. Levinson and M. Ember (eds.), Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology, V.2. NY: Henry Holt and Company. s. 466-469.
52. MARCHAND, Suzanna (2003). “Priests Among the Pygmies: Wilhelm Schmidt and The Counter- Reformation in Austrian Ethnology”, (eds. H. Glenn Penny and Matti Bunzl), Worldly Provincialism: German Anthropology in the Age of Empire. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press. s. 238-316.
53. MARCUS, George E. (1995). “Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multisited Ethnography”, Annual Review of Anthropology, S.2, s. 95-117.
54. PACE, Michelle (2006). The Politics of Regional Identity: Meddling with the Mediterranean. London: Routledge.
55. PARMAN, Susan (1998). “Introduction: Europe in the Anthropological Imagination” (ed. Susan Parman), Europe in the Anthropological Imagination. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, s. 1-16.
56. PERISTIANY, John G. (ed.) (1965). Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
57. RADCLIFFE-BROWN, Alfred Reginald (1951). “The Comparative Method in Social Anthropology”, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, C.81, s. 15-22.
58. RAFAEL, Vicente L. (1994). “The Cultures of Area Studies in the United States”, Social Text, S.41, s. 91-111.
59. REJWAN, Nissim (1998). Israel’s Place in the Middle East: A Pluralist Perspective. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
60. ROGERS, Susan C. (1997). “Explorations in Terra Cognita”, Asad, T., Fernandez, J. W., Herzfeld, M., Lass, A., Rogers, S. C., Schneider, J., Verdery, K. “Provocations of European Ethnology”. American Anthropologist, S. 99, C.4, s. 713– 730.
61. SAID, Edward (2012). Şarkiyatçılık: Batı’nın Şark Anlayışları. (çev.: B. Ülner), İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
62. SCHNEIDER, Jane (1971). “Of vigilance and virgins: Honor, Shame, and Access to Resources in Mediterranean Societies”, Ethnology, S. 10, s. 1-24.
63. SHORE, Chris (2000). Building Europe: The Cultural Politics of European Integration. London: Routledge.
64. SIMON Spector, Reeva, Michael Menachem Laskier and Sara Reguer (eds.). (2002). The Jews of the Middle East and North Africa in Modern Times. New York: Columbia University Press.
65. TANIMI, Azzam and John L. Esposito (eds.). (2002). Islam and Secularism in the Middle East. London: Hurst & Company.
66. TODOROVA, Maria (2006). Balkanları Tahayyül Etmek. (çev.: D. Şendil). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
67. UPADHYAY, V. S. and Gaya Pandey. (1993). History of Anthropological Thought. Concept.
68. VAN BREMEN, Jan, Eyal Ben-Ari, and Syed Farid Alatas (eds.). (2005). Asian Anthropology. London: Routledge.
69. VERMEULEN, Han F. and Arturo Alvarez Roldan (eds.). (1995). Fieldwork and Footnotes: Studies in the History of Anthropology. London: Routledge.
70. YELVINGTON, Kevin A. (2001). “The Anthropology of Afro-Latin America and the Caribbean: Diasporic Dimensions”, Annual Review of Anthropology, S. 30, s. 227-260.
71. WHITING, John W. (1986). “George Peter Murdock (1897–1985)”, American Anthropologist, S. 88, C.3, s. 682-686.
72. WISSLER, Clark (1927). “The Culture-Area Concept in Social Anthropology”, American Journal of Sociology, S. 32, C.6, s. 881-891.
73. WOLF, Eric (1984). Religion, Power and Protest in the Local Communities the Northern Shore of the Mediterranean. Mouton.