NEOKLASİK REALİZM: İLERLETİCİ Mİ? YOZLAŞTIRICI MI? LAKATOSYAN BİR DEĞERLENDİRME

Yıl 2015, Sayı: 46, 1 - 18, 14.10.2015

Samet Yılmaz

Öz

1980 sonrası dönemde realist uluslararası ilişkiler teorisi içerisinde realizmin yapısalcı yorumu hakim konumda olmuş ve teoriye yönelik tartışmalar yapısalcı realizm etrafında gerçekleşmiştir. Bu dönemde realizm hem kendi içerisinde yeni sorunsallarla hem de diğer teorilerden gelen eleştirilerle karşı karşıya kalmıştır. Bu çerçevede realist uluslararası ilişkiler teorisi içerisinde bu sorunsallar ele alınmış ve hakim yapısalcı realizm dışında çeşitli vaka çalışmaları yapılmıştır. Bu vaka çalışmaları, devletlerin belli dış politika eylemlerini ve ulusal politikanın bu eylemler üzerindeki etkisini açıklamaya yönelik tekil çalışmalar olarak yapılmıştır. Neticede bu vaka çalışmalarını kendi bünyesinde toplayan neoklasik realizm yeni bir model olarak uluslararası ilişkiler teorileri içerisinde konumlanmıştır. Bu çalışmada realizm içerisinde ortaya çıkan ya da kendisini realizm içerisinde konumlandıran neoklasik realizmin realist uluslararası ilişkiler teorisi içerisindeki konumu ve öne sürdüğü varsayımların getirdiği yenilikler analiz edilecektir. Bu yapılırken Imre Lakatos’un “Bilimsel Araştırma Programı” yaklaşımından yararlanılacaktır. Lakatos’un yaklaşımı çerçevesinde teorinin realizm içerisinde ilerletici mi yoksa yozlaştırıcı mı olduğu sorunsalına cevap aranacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Neoklasik Realizm, Bilimsel İlerleme, Imre Lakatos, Bilimsel Araştırma Programı

NEOCLASSICAL REALISM: PROGRESSIVE OR DEGENERATIVE? A LAKATOSIAN EVALUATION

Öz

The dominant version in realist international theory in post-1980 period was structural realism, and discussions about theory revolved around it. In this term, realism was encountered new problematics from inside realism and critics from other theoretical approaches. In this framework, new problematics were addressed in realist international theory, and new case studies were made out of the dominant structural realism. These case studies were aimed to clarify foreign policy actions of states, and to show effect of domestic politics on these foreign policy actions. Eventually, neoclassical realism including these case studies has been positioned in international relations theories. In this paper, neoclassical realism emerged from realism, or positioned itself within realism will be analysed in terms of its propositions in realist international realist theory. To do this, it will be benefited from Scientific Research Program of Imre Lakatos. The problematic whether neoclassical realism is scientifically progressive or degenerative within realism will be handled in the perspective of Lakatos

Anahtar Kelimeler

Neoclassical Realism, Scientific Progress, Imre Lakatos, Scientific Research Program

Kaynakça

• Ağcan, M. A. (2014). “Sosyal Bilimler Felsefesi ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorisi”, Evren Balta (der.), Küresel Siyasete Giriş
• Uluslararası İlişkilerde Kavramlar, Teoriler ve Süreçler (ss. 77-110), İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları. Arı T. (2014). “Uluslararası İlişkilerde Büyük Tartışmalar ve Post-Modern Teoriler”, Tayyar Arı (der.), Postmodern
• Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri 2 Uluslararası İlişkilerde Eleştirel Yaklaşımlar (ss. 1-49), Bursa: Dora Yayınları. Arı, T. (2013). Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri Çatışma, Hegemonya ve İşbirliği, 8. b., Bursa: MKM Yayıncılık.
• Ashley R. (1986). “The Poverty Of Neorealism”, Robert O. Keohane (der.), Neorealism and its Critics (pp. 255-301), New York:
• Columbia University Press. Babbie, E. (2008). The Basics Of Social Research, 4th ed., Belmont Ca.: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
• Berg B.L. (2001). Qualitative Research Methods For The Social Sciences, 4th ed., Boston: Allyn & Bacon Press.
• Buzan B. (2008). “The Timeless wisdom of realism?”, Steve Smith, Ken Booth, Marysia Zalevski (der.), International theory: positivism and beyond (pp. 47-66), Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Cevizci, A. (2012). Bilgi Felsefesi, 2.b., İstanbul: Say Yayınları.
• Chalmers, A. F., (1999). What is this thing called Science?, 3rd ed., Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
• Christensen, T. J. (1996). Useful Adversaries: Grand Strategy, Domestic Mobilization, And Sino-American Conflict 1947–1958,
• New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Christensen, T. J. ve Snyder, J. (1990). “Chain Gangs and Passed Bucks Predicting Alliance Patterns in Multipolarity”,
• International Organization, 44(2), 137-168. Cox R. (1986). “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory”, Robert O. Keohane (der.),
• Neorealism and its Critics (pp. 204-255), New York: Columbia University Press. Çüçen, A. K. (2012). Bilgi Felsefesi, 4. b., Bursa: Sentez Yayıncılık.
• Dahl R. A. (1957). “The Concept of Power”, Behavioral Science, 2(3), 201-215.
• Donnelly, J. (2000). Realism and International Relations Themes in International Relations, New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Donnelly, J. (2005). “Realism”, Scot Burchill, Andrew Linklater (der.), Theories of International Relations (pp. 29-55), New
• York: Palgrave Macmmillan Press. Dryzek, J. S. (1986). “The Progress of Political Science”, The Journal of Politics, 48(2), 301-320.
• Elman C. (1996). “Horses for courses Why nor neorealist theories of foreign policy”, Security Studies, 6(1), 7-53.
• Elman C. (2007). “Realism”, Martin Griffiths (der.), International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First Century (pp. 11-21),
• New York: Routledge Press. Elman, C. ve Elman, M. F. (2003a). “Lessons from Lakatos”, Colin Elman, Miriam Fendius Elman (der.), Progress in
• International Relations Theory Appraising the Field (pp. 21-71), Cambridge: The MIT Press. Elman, C. ve Elman, M. F. (2003b). ”Introduction: Appraising Progress in International Relations Theory”, Colin Elman, Miriam
• Fendius Elman (der.), Progress in International Relations Theory Appraising the Field (pp. 1-21), Cambridge: The MIT Press. Folker, J. S., (2002), Theories of International Cooperation and the Primacy of Anarchy, New York: State University of New York Press.
• Gaddis J. L. (1992). “International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War”, International Security, 17(3), 5-58.
• Gilpin, R. (1981). War and Change in World Politics, New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Gilpin, R. (1986). “The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism”, Robert O Keohane (der.), Neorealism and its Critics (pp. 301-322), New York: Columbia University Press.
• Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science Theory and Reality, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Holsti O. R. (2004). “Theories of International Relations”, Michael J. Hogan, Thomas G. Paterson (der.), Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations (pp. 51-91), New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Jervis, R. (1998). “Realism in the Study of World Politics,” International Organization, International Organization at Fifty:
• Exploration and Contestation in the Study of World Politics, 52(4), 971-991. Joseph, J. (2007). “Philosophy in International Relations: A Scientific Realist Approach”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 35(2), 345-359.
• Koyuncu A. Ç. (2014). “Uluslararası İlişkiler Temelinde Farklı Feminist Yaklaşımların Söylemleri”, Tayyar Arı (der.),
• Postmodern Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri 2 Uluslararası İlişkilerde Eleştirel Yaklaşımlar (ss. 203-227), Bursa: Dora Yayınları. Kuhn, T. S., (2008). Bilimsel Devrimlerin Yapısı, 8. b., çev. Nilüfer Kuyaş, İstanbul: Kırmızı Yayınları.
• Küçük M. (2014). “Uluslararası İlişkilerde Sosyal İnşacılık”, Ramazan Gözen (der.), Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri (pp. 325- 379), İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
• Lakatos, I. (1978a). “History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions”, John Worrall ve Gregory Currie (der.), The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes Philosophical Papers Imre Lakatos (pp. 102-139), New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Lakatos, I. (1978b). “Falsification and The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes”, John Worrall ve Gregory Currie
• (der.), The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes Philosophical Papers Imre Lakatos (pp. 8-102), New York: Cambridge University Press. Lebow R. N. (1994). “The long peace, the end of the cold war, and the failure of realism”, International Organization, 48(2), 249-2
• Legro, J. W. ve Moravcsik, A. (1999). “Is anybody stil a realist”, International Security, 24(2), 5-55.
• Linklater A. (1995). “Neo-Realism in Theory and Pratice”, Ken Booth ve Steve Smith (der.), International Relations Theory
• Today (pp. 241-263), Cambridge UK: Polity Press: Polity Press. Mastanduno M., Lake D.A., Ikenberry G.J. (1989). “Toward a Realist Theory of State Action”, International Studies Quarterly, 33(4), 457-474.
• Morgenthau, H. J. (1970). Uluslararası Politika Güç ve Barış Mücadelesi I. Cilt, çev. Baskın Oran, Ünal Oskay, Ankara: Türk
• Siyasi İlimler Derneği. Popper, K. R. (2012). Bilimsel Araştırmanın Mantığı, çev. İlknur Aka, İbrahim Turan, İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
• Rathbun B. (2008). “A Rose by Any Other Name: Neoclassical Realism as the Logical and Necessary Extension of Structural
• Realism”, Security Studies, 17, 294–321. Ripsman, N. M. (2002). Peace-Making By Democracies: The Effect of State Autonomy on The Post–World War Settlements,
• Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Ripsman, N. M. (2009). Norrin M., “Neoclassical realism and domestic interest groups”, Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, Steven E. Lobell ve Norrin M. Ripsman (der.), Neoclassical Realism, The State, and Foreign Policy (pp. 170-194), New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Rose, G. (1998). “Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy”, World Politics, 51(1), 144-172.
• Ruggie J. (1986). “Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a Neorealist Synthesis”, Robert O. Keohane
• (der.), Neorealism and its Critics (pp. 131-158), New York: Columbia University Press. Schweller, R. L. (2003). “The Progressiveness of Neoclassical Realism”, Colin Elman ve Miriam Fendius Elman (der.), Progress in International Relations Theory Appraising the Field (pp. 311-349), Cambridge: The MIT Press.
• Schweller, R. L. (2004). “Unanswered Threats: A Neoclassical Realist Theory of Underbalancing”, International Security, 29(2), 159-20
• Schweller, R. L. (2009). “Neoclassical realism and state mobilization: expansionist ideology in the age of mass politics”, Jeffrey
• W. Taliaferro, Steven E. Lobell ve Norrin M. Ripsman (der.), Neoclassical Realism, The State, and Foreign Policy (pp. 227- 250), New York: Cambridge University Press. Suctch, F. P. ve Ellias J. (2007). International Relations: The Basics, New York: Routledge Press.
• Taliaferro, J. W., Lobell, S. E. ve Ripsman, N. M. (2009). “Introduction: Neoclassical Realism, The State, and Foreign Policy”,
• Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, Steven E. Lobell ve Norrin M. Ripsman (der.), Neoclassical Realism, The State, and Foreign Policy (pp. 1- 42), New York: Cambridge University Press. Vasquez, J. A. (1997). “The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs An Appraisal of
• Neotraditional Research on Waltz's Balancing Proposition”, The American Political Science Review, 91(4), 899-912. Walker R. B. J. (1993). Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory, New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
• Waltz, K. N. (1992). “Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory”, Robert L. Rothstein (der.), The Evolution of Theory in
• International Relations (pp. 21-39), Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. Waltz, K. N. (1997). “Evaluating Theories”, The American Political Science Review, 91(4), 913-917.
• Weber C. (2010). International Relations Theory A critical introduction, 3.ed., New York: Routledge Press.
• Wendt A. (1992). “Anarchy is what states make of it”, International Organization, 46(2), 391-425.
• Wohlforth, W. C. (1993). The Elusive Balance Power and Perceptions During the Cold War, New York: Cornell University Press.
• Wohlforth, W. C. (2010). "Realism”, Christian Reus-Smit, Duncan Snidal (der.), The Oxford Handbook of International
• Relations (pp. 131-150), New York: Oxford University Press. Yalvaç, F. (2014). “Uluslararası İlişkilerde Teori Kavramı ve Temel Teorik Tartışmalar”, Ramazan Gözen (der.), Uluslararası
• İlişkiler Teorileri (ss. 31-67), İstanbul: İletişim Yayıncılık. Yıldırım, C. (2006). Bilim Tarihi, İstanbul: Remzi Kitapevi.
• Zakaria, F. (1998). From Wealth to Power: The Unusual Origins of America’s World Role, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.