COMMUNICATION BETWEEN VALUES, SANCTIONS AND NORMS

Öz

When a person crosses a road without a pedestrian crossing, he or she commits a criminal offense. Admittedly, there is hardly an adult in the world who has not committed this act. But these people are very likely to be punished more in Switzerland, for example, than in Turkey. Without any doubt, these divergent practices can be explained by the cultural background, value system and infrastructure in these countries. First question is what does this observation and explanation say about the norms, everyday practices, habits and laws in general? The related question is, how is it that in everyday life we follow informal habits and cultural-religious obligations at least as much as formal laws? That there is a difference between them is usually not consciously perceived. At the same time, independent of the actors’ conscious perception of their difference, they influence, indeed determine the way in which action is taken, thought about, and how the facts and concepts that present themselves are evaluated in the respective situations. Consequently, the third question is what are values and, related to this, in what they differ from norms. To answer these questions, a methodological distinction is made between sociology and philosophy. This differentiation allows on the one hand to look at norms and values from their genealogy and on the other hand to subject one’s own orientations to a critical examination in the light of certain principles and these not only in everyday life, but also in science.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• value
• norms
• sanction
• facts
• validity

DEĞERLER, CEZALAR VE NORMLAR ARASINDAKİ İLETİŞİM

Öz

Bir kişi yaya geçidi olmayan bir yoldan geçerse suç işlemiş olur. İtiraf edilmeli ki, bu eylemi bu dünyada yapmayan tek yetişkin neredeyse yoktur. Bununla birlikte bu kişilerin Türkiye’ye nazaran örneğin İsviçre’de daha fazla cezalandırılmaları çok daha muhtemeldir. Şüphesiz, bu farklı uygulamalar bu ülkelerdeki kültürel geçmiş, değerler yapısı ve bizzat ülkelerin altyapısıyla açıklanabilir. İlk sorumuz şu; bu gözlem ve açıklama, normlar, günlük uygulamalar, alışkanlıklar ve yasalar hakkında genel olarak ne söylüyor? Daha da önemlisi, nasıl oluyor da gündelik hayatta en az resmi yasalar kadar gayri resmi alışkanlıklara ve kültürel-dini yükümlüklere uyuyoruz? Genellikle, bunların aralarında bir fark olduğu bilinçli olarak algılanmaz. Bununla birlikte, aktörlerin bu ayrışımı bilinçli olarak algılamalarından bağımsız olarak, yasal ve yasal olmayan kanun, kurallar, değerler ve olguları değerlendirmek için başvurduğumuz normlar bireyin eylemi nasıl yaptığını, nasıl düşündüğünü ve günlük yaşamda karşılaşılan olgular ve kavramları nasıl değerlendirdiğini etkiler, hatta belirlerler. Dolayısıyla üçüncü soru, bu değerlerin ne olduğu ve bununla bağlantılı olarak bu değerlerin normlardan farkının ne olduğudur. Bu soruyu cevaplamak için metodolojik olarak sosyolojik değerler ve felsefi normlar arasında bir ayrım yapılacaktır. Bu ayrışım, sadece günlük yaşamda değil, ama aynı zamanda bilimde de bir yandan norm ve değerlerin farklı kökenine bakılmasına, diğer yandan da kişi ve/veya kurumların yönelimlerini belirli ilkeler ışığında eleştirel bir incelemeye tabi tutmasına olanak tanır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• normlar,
• , değerler
• yaptırım
• meşruluk
• olgular

Kaynakça

1. Abbott, A. (1988). The System of Profession. An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago: Chicago UP.
2. Aubert, V. (1967). Elements of sociology. London: Heinemann.
3. Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. Basic Books: New York.
4. Bacharach, M. and Gambetta, D. (2001). „Trust in signs.“In: Cook, Karen S. (Ed.): Trust in Society. Pp: 148-184. New York: Rusell Sage Foundation.
5. Bird, R. B. and Smith, E. A. (2005). „Sianaling theory, strategic interaktion, and symbolic capital.“ In: Current Antropology, Vol. 46 (2), 221-248. URL: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/427115
6. Body, R. and Richerson, J. R. (1985). Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7. Braudel, F. (1972). „Geschichte und Sozialwissenschaften -die longue durée.“ In Wehler, Hans-Ulrich (Hrsg.): Geschichte und Soziologie (p. 189-215). Köln: Kiepenheuer&Witsch.
8. Centola, D. and Baronchelli, A. (2015). „The Spontaneous Emergence of Conventions: An Experimental Study of Cultural Evolution.“ In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 112 (7), 1989-1994.

9. Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What is this thing called Science. Hackett: Indianapolis.
10. Durkheim, E. (1967a). Soziologie und Philosophie. Mit einer Einleitung von Theodor W. Adorno. Theorie I. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
11. Durkheim, E. (1981b). Die elementaren Formen des religiösen Lebens. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
12. Durkheim, E. (1983c). Der Selbstmord. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
13. Durkheim, E. (1991d). Physik der Sitten und des Rechts: Vorlesungen zur Soziologie der Moral. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Ehrlich, E. (1913). Grundlagen der Soziologie des Rechts. München: Duncker.
14. Eisenmenger, S. (2012). Privatisierung der Justiz aus rechtlicher und ökonomischer Sicht. Köln: Heymann.
15. Ellickson, R. C. (1991a). Order without law: how neighbors settle disputes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
16. Ellickson, R. C. (2001b): „The Evolution of Social Norms: A Perspektive from the Legal Ecademy.“ In: Hechter, M. and Opp, K.-D. (Ed.). Social norms (p. 35-76). New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
17. Fehr, E., and Gächter, S. (2000a). „Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments“. The American Economic Review, Vol 90(4), 980-994. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/117319
18. Fehr, E., and Gächter, S. (2002b). „Altruistic punishment in humans.“ Nature 415, 137-140.: URL: https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6868/pdf/415137a.pdf
19. Fernandez-Kelly, M. P. (1995): „Social and Cultural Capital in the Urban Ghetto: Implications for the Economic Sociology of Immigration.“ In: Portes, A. (Ed.). The Economic Sociology of Immigration. Essays on Networks, Ethnicity, and Entrepreneurship (p. 213-247). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
20. Habermas, J. (1992b). Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaates. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
21. Habermas, J. (1996c). Die Einbeziehung des Anderen. Studien zur politischen Theorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
22. Habermas, Jürgen (1991a): Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
23. Hall, P. A. and Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). „Political science and the three new institutionalisms.“In: Political Studies, Vol. 44 (5), 936-957. Doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00343.x
24. Hayek, F. A. (1973). Law, legislation and liberty: a new statement of the liberal principles of justice and political economy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
25. Heckathorn, Douglas D. (1990). „Collective sanctions and compliance norms - A formal theory of group-mediated social control.“ In: American Sociological Review, Vol. 55 (3), 366-384. DOI: 10.2307/2095762
26. Helbing, D. / Yu, W. / Opp, K.-D. and Rauhut, H. (2014): „Conditions for the Emergence of Shared Norms in Populations with Incompatible Preferences.“ In: PLoS ONE, Vol. 9(8), e104207. URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0104207
27. Hirschman, A. O. (1974). Exit, voice, and loyalty: responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
28. Hobbes, T. (1976). Leviathan oder Stoff, Form und Gewalt eines kirchlichen und bürgerlichen Staates. Frankfurt am Main: Ullstein Buch.
29. Horne, Christine (2001). „Sociological Perspectives on the Emergence of Norms.“ In: Hechter, Mechter and Opp, Karl-Dieter (Ed.): Social norms (p. 3-34). New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
30. Keohane, R. O. (1982). „The Demand for International Regimes.“ In: International Organization, Vol. 36 (2), 325-355.
31. Levi-Straus, Claude (1994). The Social and Psychological Aspect of Chieftainship in a Primitive Tribe: the Nambikuara of Northwestern Mato Grosso. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences. Vol. 7(1), 16-32.
32. Luhmann, N. (1995a). „Kausalität im Süden.“ In: Soziale Systeme, Vol. 1 (1), 7-28. URL: http://www.soziale-systeme.ch/leseproben/luhmann.htm
33. Luhmann, N. (1997b). Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Band I. und Band II. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
34. Luhmann, N. (2008c). Rechtssoziologie. Wiesbaden: VS, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
35. Maturana, H. R. und Varela, F. J. (1987). Der Baum der Erkenntnis. Bern: Scherz.
36. Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. London: Routledge.
37. Rauhut, H. and Jud, S. (2014). „Avoiding Detection or Reciprocating Norm Vialatins? An Experimental of Self-and Other-Regarding Mechanisms for Norm Adherence.“ In: Soziale Welt, 65 (2),153-183. Doi: https://doi.org/10.5771/0038-6073-2014-2-153
38. Rauhut, H. und Krumpal, I. (2008). „Die Durchsetzung Sozialer Normen in Low-Cost Und High-Cost Situationen/ Enforcement of Social Norms in Low-Cost and High-Cost Situations.“ In: Zeitschrift Für Soziologie, Vol. 37 (5), 380-402. URL: http://www.zfs-online.org/index.php/zfs/article/viewFile/1282/819
39. Rawls, John (1975): Eine Theorie der Gerechtigkeit. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
40. Rousseau, J.-J. (2001 [1762]): Emile, oder, Über die Erziehung. Stuttgart: Reclam.
41. Sampson, R. J.; Raudenbush, S. W. and Felton E. (1997). „Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy.“In: Science, Vol. 277(5328), 918-924. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2892902
42. Steinberg, L. (2014). Age of opportunity: lessons from the new science of adolescence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
43. Stichweh, R. (1994). Wissenschaft, Universität, Professionen: soziologische Analysen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
44. Thelen, K. (1999): „Historical institutionalism in comparative politics.“ In: Annual review of political science, Vol. 2, 369-404. URL: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.369
45. Vanberg, V. J. (1994). Rules and choice in economics. London: Routledge.
46. Weber, M. (1980a): Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie. Tübingen: Mohr.
47. Weber, M. (1985b). Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre. Tübingen: Mohr.
48. Weber, M. (1986c). Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie. Tübingen: Mohr.
49. Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics, or control and communication in the animal and the machine. Paris: Hermann.
50. Wilhelmy, L. (1851). Über das Gesetz, nach welchem die Einwirkung der Säuren auf den Rohrzucker stattfindet. Leipzig: Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann.
51. Zado, J. (2013). Privatisierung der Justiz: zur Bedeutung und verfassungsrechtlichen Zulässigkeit von Privatisierungen in Rechtsprechung, Strafvollzug, Zwangsvollstreckung und Handelsregister. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.