Muhafazakarlığın Eğilim Temelli Bir Kavrayışına Doğru

Year 2018, Volume: 9 Issue: 16, 2654 - 2674, 30.12.2018

Aksu Akçaoğlu

https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.501137

Abstract

Bu makale
Pierre Bourdieu’nün ilişkisel sosyolojisi üzerinden, bir ideoloji ya da düşünce
tarzı olarak muhafazakârlık tanımının toplumsal eleştirisini sunuyor.
Muhafazakârlığın yerleşik tanımı kavramın stratejik ve eğilimsel boyutlarını
gözardı ettiği için, bütünlüklü bir analiz için elverişli değildir. Buna ek
olarak, siyasi söylemleri ve kültürel ürünleri tek meşru analiz birimi olarak
görmesi nedeniyle, muhafazakârlığın yerleşik tanımı soyut bir özne inşa eder ve
bu öznenin dünyayla kendiliğinden entellektüel bir ilişki kurduğunu varsayar.
Bu çalışma, yerleşik muhafazakârlık tanımının sınırlılıkları karşısında Pierre
Bourdieu sosyolojisinin sunabileceği meziyetleri sorguluyor. İlk olarak,
Fransız sosyoloğun toplumsal dünyayı bir sosyal topografi olarak inşa
edebilmesini mümkün kılan temel kavramsal araçlar tanıtılıyor. Ardından bu
kavramsal araçlarla girişilecek nesne inşasının hem nesnel hem de öznel
uğrakları tartışılıyor. Sembolik mücadelelerin toplumsal dünyanın teşkilinde
oynadığı rolün altı çiziliyor. Son olarak, sosyal görme ve bölme ilkelerinin
çeşitli alanlarda verilen mücadeleler neticesinde büründüğü sembolik form
olarak muhafazakârlığın eğilimsel tanımı geliştiriliyor. Muhafazakârlığın
kültürel değerler temelli mevcut ampirik tanımı karşısında geliştirilen
eğilimsel yaklaşımın sınırlılıkları ve imkanları tartışılıyor. 

Keywords

Muhafazakârlık, Pierre Bourdieu, eğilimler, ideoloji, kuram.

Towards A Dispositional Comprehension of Conservatism

Abstract

This paper
presents a social critique of the conservatism as an ideology or a way of
thinking through Pierre Bourdieu’s relational sociology. It is argued that the
established definition of the conservatism cannot analyze the holistic reality
of the concept since it does not take into account of the conservatism as a set
of dispositions. In addition to that, having the political discourse and
cultural products as the only legitimate unit of analysis, the established
definition of conservatism constructs an abstract actor whose link with the
social world is essentially intellectual. Against the limits of the
commonsensical definition of conservatism, this paper interrogates the merits
of Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology. It first introduces the key conceptual tools
through which the French sociologist constructs the social world as a social
topography. The paper explains both objectivist and subjectivist moments of
research object construction. It also underlines the role of symbolic struggles
in the formation of social world. Finally, this study develops a dispositional
definition of conservatism as the symbolic form that the principles of vision
and division gain within the struggles of various fields. The merits of the
dispositional comprehension of conservatism are compared with the existing
empirical definition of conservatism as a set of cultural values.

Keywords

Conservatism, Pierre Bourdieu, dispositions, ideology

References

• Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Massachusets: Harvard University Press.
• Bourdieu, P. (1986). “The Forms of Capital”. Richardson J. E. (Ed.). Handbook of theory of research for the sociology of education, in (pp: 46-58). New York: Greenwood Press.
• Bourdieu, P. (1990a). The logic of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Bourdieu, P. (1990b). In other words: Essays towards a reflexive sociology. Stanford: Stanford University.
• Bourdieu, P. (1991a). First lecture. Social space and symbolic space: Introduction to a Japanese reading of distinction. Poetics Today 12(4), 627-638.
• Bourdieu, P. (1991b). Language and symbolic power. Polity Press: Malden, pp. 163-170.
• Bourdieu, P. (1991c). Genesis and structure of religious field. Comparative Social Research, 13, 1-44.
• Bourdieu, P. (1994). Sociology in question. London: Sage Publications.
• Bourdieu, P. (1996). The state nobility: Elite schools in the field of power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Bourdieu, P. (2000). Pascalian meditations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Bourdieu, P. (2004). Algerian landing. Ethnography, 5(4), 415-443.
• Bourdieu, P. (2014). On the state. Malden: Polity Press.
• Beneton, P. (2011). Muhafazakarlık. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
• Bora, T. (1998). Türk sağının üç hali: Milliyetçilik, muhafazakarlık, islamcılık. İstanbul: Birikim Yayınları.
• Brennan G. & Hamlin A. (2004). Analytic conservatism. British Journal of Political Science 34, 675-691.
• Burke, E. (2009). Reflections on the revolution in France. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Durkheim, E. & Mauss, M. (1963). Primitive classification. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Durkheim, E. (1976). The elementary forms of religious life. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
• Durkheim, E. (1982). Rules of sociological method. New York: The Free Press, pp. 211-229.
• Fein, K. (2011). Conservatism: A state of the field. The Journal of American History, 98 (3), 723-743.
• Habermas, J. (1989). The new conservatism: Cultural criticism and the historian’s debate. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Heywood, A. (1992). Political ideologies: An introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Kekes, J. (1998). A case for conservatism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Kirk, R. (1995). The conservative mind: From Burke to Eliot. Washington D.C.: Regnery Pub.
• Lee, M. J. (2014). Creating conservatism: Postwar words that made an American movement. Michigan: Michigan State University.
• Medvetz, T. (2012). Think tanks in America. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Müller, Z. J. (1997). Conservatism: An anthology of the social and political thought from David Hume to the present. New Jersey: Princeton University Press
• Nisbet, R. (1952). Conservatism and sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 58 (2), 167-175.
• Nisbet, R. (2006). “Muhafazakarlık.” Bottomore, T. & Nisbet, R. (Der.). Sosyolojik çözümlemenin tarihi-1. in (ss: 105-142). İstanbul: Kırmızı Yayınları.
• Oakeshott, M. (1991). “On Being Conservative.” Timothy Fuller (Ed.). Rationalism in politics. in (pp. 168-196). Indianapolis: Liberty Press.
• Swartz, D. (2013). Symbolic power, politics, and ıntellectuals: The political sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Wacquant, L. (1992). “Toward a Social Praxeology: The Structure and Logic of Bourdieu’s Sociology”. Bourdieu P. & Wacquant L. (Ed.). Invitation for a reflexive sociology. In (pp. 1-46), Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Wacquant, L. (2013). Symbolic power and group-making: on Pierre Bourdieu’s reframing of class. Journal of Classical Sociology, 13 (2), 274-291.
• Wacquant, L. (1993). From ruling class to field of power: An interview with Pierre Bourdieu on La noblesse d’État. Theory, Culture & Society, 10(3), 19-44.
• Wacquant, L. & Akçaoğlu, A. (2017). Practice and symbolic power in Pierre Bourdieu: The view From Berkeley. Journal of Classical Sociology 17(1), 37-51.