David Harvey ve Bob Jessop’ta Uzam-Zamansal Sabitler

Year 2020, Volume: 11 Issue: 30, 701 - 716, 31.08.2020

Erol Subaşi

https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.707711

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Çağdaş dünyanın önde gelen Marksist teorisyenlerinden olan David Harvey, kapitalizmin mekan üretimi konusundaki düşüncelerimizde devrim yarattı. Bir başka önde gelen Marksist teorisyen olan Bob Jessop Marksist devlet kuramını dönüştürdü. Bu ikili, her ne kadar kapitalist üretim tarzı analizinde pek çok noktada yakınlaşsalar da uzam-zamansal sabitler kavramının nasıl analiz edileceğine dair bir dizi metodolojik ve teorik argümanda birbirlerinden ayrılırlar. Harvey, Kapital’i ve Grundrisse’yi izleyerek sermayenin dolaşımına odaklanan değer-teorik bir yaklaşım benimserken; Jessop Nicos Poulantzas’ı ve Düzenleme Okulu’nu izleyerek kapitalist toplumsal formasyonlarla ilgili olarak daha sosyo-politik bir yönelim çağrısında bulundu. Harvey, uzam-zamansal sabitlerin yaratılmasında kapitalizmin ve sermaye dolaşımının içsel çelişkilerine ve kriz eğilimlerine odaklanırken Jessop uzam-zamansal sabitlerin üretilmesinde ekonomi-dışı toplumsallaştırma kiplikleri olarak devlete ve siyasal iktidar ilişkilerine daha fazla önem vermektedir. Bu çalışma Harvey’nin bu alana yaptığı çok önemli katkıları tanımakla birlikte Jessop’ı izleyerek sosyo-politikleşmiş bir uzam-zamansal sabit kavramını savunmaktadır. Çalışma, kavramı toplumsal bütünlüğün, ekonomik, politik ve ideolojik belirlenimlerinin karmaşık eklemlenmesi yolu ile devlet erki ve sosyo-politik iktidar ilişkilerine bağlamayı önermektedir.

Keywords

David Harvey, Bob Jessop, uzam-zamansal sabitler, uzam-zamanın kapitalist üretimi, siyaset sosyolojisi

Thanks

Bu çalışmanın ilk hali 16-18 Ekim 2019 tarihinde Ankara'da düzenlenen 4. Uluslararası Kent Araştırmaları Kongresi'nde bildiri olarak sunulmuştur.

David Harvey and Bob Jessop on Spatio-Temporal Fixes

Abstract

David Harvey, one of the most preeminent Marxist theoreticians of the contemporary world revolutionized our thinking about the capitalist production of space while Bob Jessop, another leading Marxist theoretician, transformed Marxist state theory. While the two converge on many points in their analysis of the capitalist mode of production, they diverge on some methodological and theoretical arguments about how to analyze the concept of spatio-temporal fixes. While Harvey follows Capital and Grundrisse to adopt a value-theoretical approach that focuses on the circulation of capital, Jessop follows Poulantzas and the Regulation School to call for a more socio-political orientation towards capitalist social formations. Whereas Harvey concentrates on the inner contradictions and crises tendencies of capitalism and capital circulations in the creation of spatio-temporal fixes, Jessop pays more attention to political power relations and the state as modes of the extra-economic principles of societalization in producing spatio-temporal fixes. The present study, recognizing Harvey’s crucial contributions to the field, but following Jessop, argues for a more socio-politicized concept of spatio-temporal fixes. It recommends linking it with state power and socio-political power relations through the complex articulations of the economic, political, and ideological determinations of social totality.

Keywords

David Harvey, Bob Jessop, spatio-temporal fixes, capitalist production of spacetime, political sociology

References

• Avineri, S. (1967). The Hegelian origins of Marx’s political thought. The Review of Metaphysics, 33–56.
• Bhaskar, R. (1998). The possibility of naturalism: a philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences (Critical Realism–Interventions). New York: Routledge.
• Dirlik, A. (2000). Globalization as the end and the beginning of history: The contradictory implications of a new paradigm. Rethinking Marxism, 12(4), 4–22.
• Foucault, M. (1980). Questions on geography. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews&other writings (p. 63–77). Pantheon Books.
• Foucault, M. (1986). Of other spaces (J. Miskowiec, Trans.). Diacritics, 16(1), 22–27.
• Giddens, A. (1981). A contemporary critique of historical materialism. University of California Press.
• Harvey, D. (1981). The spatial fix–Hegel, von Thunen, and Marx. Antipode, 13(3), 1–12.
• Harvey, D. (1985). Consciousness and the urban experience. Basil Blackwell.
• Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity: an enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Blackwell.
• Harvey, D. (2003). The new imperialism. Oxford University Press.
• Hegel, G. W. F. (1991). Elements of the philosophy of right (A. W. Wood, Ed.; H. B. Nisbet, Trans.). Cambridge University Press.
• Jameson, F. (1992). Postmodernism, or, the cultural logic of late capitalism. Verso.
• Jessop, B. (2002). The future of the capitalist state. Polity.
• Jessop, B. (2006). Spatial fixes, temporal fixes and spatio-temporal fixes. In N. Castree and D. Gregory (Eds.), David Harvey: A critical reader (p. 142–166). Blackwell Publishing.
• Marx, K. (1982). Capital: Volume 1: A critique of political economy (B. Fowkes, Trans.; Reprint Edition). Penguin Classics.
• Marx, K. (1993). Grundrisse (M. Nicolaus, Trans.). Penguin Books.
• Mcluhan, M., and Powers, B. R. (1989). The global village: Transformations in world life and media in the 21st century. Oxford University Press.
• Ollmann, B. (1971). Alienation: Marx’s conception of man in capitalist society. Cambridge University Press.
• Ollmann, B. (1993). Dialectical investigations. Routledge.
• Popper, K. (1964). Poverty of historicism. Harper Torchbooks.
• Poulantzas, N. (2000). State, power, socialism. Verso.
• Smith, N. (2008). Uneven development: Nature, capital and the production of space (3rd ed.). The University of Georgia Press.
• Soja, E. W. (1989). Postmodern geographies: The reassertion of space in critical social theory. Verso.
• Soja, E. W. (2009). Taking space personally. In B. Warf & S. Arias (Eds.), The spatial turn ınterdisciplinary perspectives (p. 11–35). Routledge.