İngiliz Okulu’nun Uluslararası İlişkilerdeki Kuramsal Konumu: Marksist Bir Eleştirel Okuma

Yıl 2020, Sayı: 57, 171 - 204, 23.12.2020

Guner Özkan , Elif Şimşek Özkan

https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.763505

Cited By: 1

Öz

Ana-akım Uluslararası İlişkiler Kuramları’nın iki ucu arasında bir orta yol vadeden İngiliz Okulu, “uluslararası toplum” kavramını, kuramsal tartışmalara taşıyarak, Uluslararası İlişkiler’e bir içebakış sağlamayı hedeflemektedir. İngiliz Okulu’nun bu vaadi, kendisini orta yol olarak tanımlamasına bağlı olarak, Ana-akım Uluslararası İlişkiler’in eleştirilerini sınırlamaktadır. Çalışmanın temel argümanı İngiliz Okulu’na yönelik eleştirilerin anılan sınırlarının Marksist bir okuma yöntemiyle aşılabileceği iddiasında bulunmaktadır. Bu iddia doğrultusunda çalışma; iktisadi, sosyolojik ve felsefi bir kuram olmanın yanında bir eleştirel okuma yöntemi olarak Marksizm’in; bilginin kim tarafından ve ne için üretildiği, hangi amaçlara hizmet ettiği üzerine soruları çerçevesinde İngiliz Okulu’nun özgün argümanlarını ve Uluslararası İlişkiler’deki kuramsal konumunu eleştirel biçimde sorgulamayı amaçlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İngiliz Okulu, Marksist Eleştirel Okuma, Uluslararası Toplum

Destekleyen Kurum

-

Proje Numarası

-

Teşekkür

-

Theoretical Position of English School in İnternational Relations: A Marxist Critical Reading

Öz

Promising the “middle ground” between the two poles of the Mainstream Theories of
International Relations, the English School seeks to provide an insight to the International
Relations, bringing the “international society” to the theoretical debates. Since the promise of the
English School limits the criticism of the capacities of the Mainstream Theories of International
Relations, the work argues that the Marxist method of critical reading can help overcome the limits
of the criticisms directed towards the English School. To prove its argument, this work aims at
critically inquiring the unique arguments and theoretical position of the English School in
International Relations through the questions of Marxism, as being not only an economical,
sociological and philosophical theory but also a method of critical reading, on the knowledge that is
produced by whom and for whom, and for what purposes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

English School,, Marxist Critical Reading, International Society

Proje Numarası

-

Kaynakça

• Althusser, L., Balibar, E. ve Establet, R. (Ed.). (2007). Kapital’i okumak. Işık Ergüden (çev.). İstanbul: İthaki.
• Armstrong, D. (1993). Revolution and World Order: The Revolutionary State in International Society. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Balibar, E. ve Wallerstein, I (2000). Irk ulus sınıf: belirsiz kimlikler, Nazlı Ökten (çev.).(3. Baskı). İstanbul: Metis.
• Bensaid, D. (2011). Marx kullanım kılavuzu. İstanbul: Habitus Kitap.
• Bottomore, T. (Ed.). (1988). Introduction. Interpretations of Marx. içinde (s. 1-19). New York: Basil Blackwell.
• Bottomore, T., Laurence, H., Kieman, V.G. ve Miliband, R. (Eds.). (1983). A dictionary of Marxist Thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Brenner, E. L. (1988).Marx and Engels on Nationalism and National Identity: A Reappraisal. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 17(1), 1-23.
• Brown, C. (1995). International Theory and International Society: The Viability of the Middle Way. Review of International Studies, 21(2), 183-196.
• Brown, C. (2000). The English School: International Theory and International Society. Mathias Albert, Lothar Brock, ve Klaus Dieter Wolf (Eds.). Civilizing world politics: society and community beyond the state. içinde (s. 91-102). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.
• Brown, C. (2001). World Society and the English School: An International Society Perspective on World Society. European Journal of International Relations, 7(4), 423-441.
• Bull, H. (1966a). International Theory: The Case for the Classical Approach. World Politics, 18(3), 361-377.
• Bull, H. (1966b). The Grotian Conception of International Society”, Martin Wight, Herbert Butterfiled (der.), Diplomatic investigations: Essays in the theory of International Politics, Londra, Allen and Unwin, 1966b, s. 63-64.
• Bull, H.(1976). Martin Wight and the Theory of International Relations: The Second Martin Wight Memorial Lecture. British Journal of International Studies, 2(2), 101-116.
• Bull, H. (1992). The anarchical society: a study of order in World Politics, 1977. Londra: Macmillian.
• Bull, H. (2000). International Relations as an Academic Pursuit. Kai Alderson ve Andrew Hurrell, (Eds). Hedley Bull on international society içinde (s. 246-264) Londra: Macmillan.
• Bull, H. ve Watson A. (Eds.). (1984). Conclusion. The expansion of international society. Içinde ( s. 430-435). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Buzan, B.(1991). People, states and fear: An agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era. (2. Baskı). Londra: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
• Buzan, B. (2001). The English School: An underexploited resource in IR. Review of International Studies, 27(3), 471-488.
• Buzan, B.(2004). From international to world society: English School Theory and the social structure of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Buzan, B. Wæver, ve O. Wilde, J. (Eds.). (1998). Security a new framework for analysis: Boulder: Lynne Publisher.
• Buzan, B., ve Little, R. (Eds.). (2000). International Systems in world history: remaking the study of international relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Chomsky, N. (2009). Mülakat: Golden rule: the investment theory of politics. Erişim adresi http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/golden_rule_the_investment _theory_of_politics_2009/
• Cox, R. (1981). Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10, 126-155.
• Cox, R. W. ve Sinclair, T. J. (1996). Approaches to World Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
• Crawford, R. (2001). Where Have all the theorist gone-gone to Britain, Every One? A story of two parochialisms in international relations.
• Crawford, R. ve Jarvis, D. (Eds.). (2001). International Relations- still an American Social Science? Towards diversity in international thought. içinde ( s. 224-226). New York: State University of New York.
• Donnelly, J. (1998). Human Rights: A new standard of civilization?. International Affairs, 74(1), 1-23.
• Dunne, T. (1998). Inventing international society: A history of the English School. Londra: Macmillan.
• Dunne, T. (2005). System, state and society: How does it all hang together. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 34, 157-170.
• Engels, F. (1988). Ütopik Sosyalizm ve Bilimsel Sosyalizm, Sol Yayınları Yayın Kurulu (çev.). Ankara: Sol.
• Fromm, E. (1966). Marx’s concept of man. New York: Frederick Ungar.
• Gallie, B. W. (2000). Marx and Engels on revolution and war. Andrew Linklater (Ed.). International Relations: Critical concepts in Political Science vol. III. içinde (s. 1095-1123). New York: Routledge.
• Gill, S. (2003). Power and resistance in the New World Order. Londra: Macmillan.
• Gong, G. W. (1984a). The Standard of Civilization in International Society. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Gong, G. W. (1984b). China’s entry into international society, Hedley Bull ve Adam Watson (Eds.). The expansion of International Society. içinde (s. 171-183). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Griffiths, M., Roach S. C. ve Solomon, M.S. (Eds.). (2011). Uluslararası İlişkilerde temel düşünürler ve teoriler. CESRAN (çev.). Ankara: Nobel.
• Guilhot, N. (2011). Introduction: One discipline, many histories. Nicolas Guilhot (Ed.). The invention of International Relations Theory: Realism, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory. içinde (s. 1-3.). New York: Colombia University Press.
• Güler, B. A. (2005). Yeni sağ ve devletin değişimine yapısal uyarlama politikaları. Ankara, İmge.
• Halliday, F. (2000). A neccesary encounter: Historical Materialism and International Relations. Andrew Linklater (Ed.). International Relations: critical concepts in political science vol. III, içinde (s. 1184-1207). New York: Routledge.
• Jackson, R. H (1982). Why Africa’s weak states persist: The empirical and the juridical in statehood. World Politics, 35(1), 1-24.
• Jackson, R. (2009). Theorising International Society: English School methods. Cornelia Navari (Ed.). International Relations as a craft discipline, içinde (s. 21-38). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Jones, R. E. (1981). The English School of International Relations: A case for closure. Review of International Studies, 7(1), 1-13.
• Jordan, R. (2011). A brief case for the English School, The Monitor-2011 Special Edition Erişim adresi http://web.wm.edu/so/monitor/issues/16-SE/3-jordan.pdf
• Kirby, D. (1986). War, Peace, and Revolution. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Lenin, V. I. (1936). Soçineniye tom III (Çözümlemeler Cilt III). Moskova: Eksmo.
• Lenin, V. I. (1993). Sömürgecilik üzerine: Ulusal Sorun ve Ulusal Kurtuluş Savaşları. (2. baskı). Yurdakul Fincancı (çev.). Ankara: Sol.
• Lenin, V. I.(1998a). Emperyalizm, Kapitalizmin en yüksek aşaması: İmperyalizm kak noveşıy etap Kapitalizma 1916. (10. baskı). Cemal Süreya (çev.). Ankara: Sol.
• Lenin, V. I. (1998b). Ulusların Kaderlerini Tayin Hakkı. (9. baskı). Muzaffer Erdost (çev.). Ankara: Sol.
• Lenin, V. I. (2003). Sosyalizm ve savaş, (1. baskı). Işıtan Gündüz (çev.). İstanbul: Evrensel.
• Linklater, A. (2010). The English School conception of International Society: reflections on Western and Non-Western perspectives. Ritsumeikan Annual Review of International Studies, 9, 1-13.
• Linklater, A. (2012). İngiliz Okulu. Scot Burchill, Andrew Linklater, Richard Devitak, Jack Donnely, Terry Nardin, Mathew Paterson, Christian Reus-Smit ve Jacque True (Eds.) Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri. Ali Aslan, Muhammet Ali Ağcan (çev.). içinde (s.119-150). İstanbul: Küre.
• Linklater, A. ve Suganami, H. (2006). The English School of International Relations A contemporary reassessment. Cambridge: Cambridge Studies.
• Little, R. (2000). The English School’s contribution to the study of International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 6(3), 395-422.
• Little, R. (2009). History, theory, and methodological pluralism in the English School. Cornelia Navari (Ed.). Theorising International Society: English School Methods. içinde ( s. 78-103). Londra: Palgareve Macmilian.
• Manning, C. W. (1975). The Nature of International Society. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
• Marx, K. (1966).Felsefenin sefaleti: M. Proudhon’un sefaletin felsefesine cevap 1847. Erdoğan Başar (çev.). Ankara: Sol.
• Marx, K. (1978). Kapital: Kapitalist üretimin eleştirel bir tahlili birinci cilt. Alaattin Bilgili (çev.). Ankara: Sol.
• Marx, K. (1994). Critique of the Gotha Program 1875. Lawrence H. Simon (der.), Selected writings: Karl Marx. içinde (s. 315-332). Hackett Publishing: Indianapolis.
• Marx, K. (1997). Kapital: Ekonomi Politiğin Eleştirisi üçüncü kitap: Bir bütün olarak Kapitalist Üretim Süreci. Friedrich Engels (haz.). Alaattin Bilgi (çev.). (3. baskı). Ankara: Sol.
• Marx, K. ve Engels, F. (2009). Felsefe metinleri. Kenan Somer, Ahmet Kardam (çev.). Muzafffer Erdost (haz.). (2. baskı). Ankara: Sol.
• Marx, K.ve Engels, F. (2004). Die Heilige Familie: MEGA 1/3, 1845. Mete Tunçay, (çev.).(der.). Batı’da siyasal düşünceler tarihi: Seçilmiş yazılar: Yeni Çağ. içinde (s. 113-164). İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• Marx, K. ve Engels, F. (2003). The Manifesto of the Communist Party 1848. Bob Blaisdell (Ed.). The Communist Manifesto and Other Revolutionary Writings: Marx, Marat, Paine, Mao, Gandhi and Others. içinde (s. 123-150). New York: Dovet Publications.
• Mayall, J. (2009). The limits of progress: normative reasoning in the English School. Cornelia Navari (Ed.). Theorising International Society: English School Methods. içinde (s. 209-226). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
• McLellan, D. (1988). The thought of Karl Marx. Londra: Macmillan.
• Mendeloff, D. (2008). Pernicious history as cause of national misperceptions: Russia and the 1999 Kosovo War. Conflict and Cooperation, 43(31), 31-43.
• Miéville, C. (2005). Between equal rights: A Marxist Theory of International Law. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers.
• Miliband, R. (1965). Marx on the state. Socialist Register: 278-296.
• Navari, C. (2009). Introduction: Methods and methodology in the English School. Cornelia Navari (Ed.).Theorising International Society: English School Methods. içinde ( s. 1-21). Londra: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Neumann, I. B. (1997). John Vincent and the English School of International Relations. Iver B. Neuman ve Ole Wæver (Eds.). The Future of International Relations: Masters in making. içinde (s. 38-65). Londra: Routledge.
• Porter B. ve Wight, G. (Eds.). (1991). Martin Wight-International Theory: The Three Traditions, Leicester: Leicester University Press.
• Reus-Smit, C. (2002). Imagining society: Constructivism and the English School. British Journal of Politics and International Relations., 4 (3), 489-490.
• Reus-Smit, C. (2010). International Relations, irrelevant? Don’t blame theory, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 40, 525-540.
• Schmind, B. C. (2011). The Rockefeller Foundation Conference and the long road to a theory of International Politics. Nicolas Guilhot (Ed.). The invention of International Relations Theory: Realism, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory. içinde (s. 79-96). New York: Colombia University Press.
• Suganami, H. (2011). The English School: History and theory. Ritsumeikan Annual Review of International Studies, 9, 27-55.
• Uzgel, İ. ve Bedirhanoğlu, N.(2015). Eleştirel bir literatür değerlendirmesi: Dışlamadan sınırlı tanımaya: Uluslararası İlişkiler Kuramları ve Marksizm. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 12 (46), 105-130.
• Wæver, O. (1996). The rise and the fall of the Inter-pradigm Debate. Steve Smith, Ken Booth ve Marysia Zalewski (Eds.). International Theory: Positivism and beyond. içinde (s. 149-185). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Waever, O. (1999). Does the English School's via media equal the contemporary Constructivist middle ground?. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the British International Studies Association, Manchester. http://www.uck.ac.uk/politics/englishscholl/waever99.htm
• Wallerstein, I. (2006). Tarihsel Kapitalizm. Necmiye Alpay (çev.). İstanbul: Metis.
• Wallerstein, I. (2010). Modern Dünya Sistemi cilt 1- Kapitalist Tarım ve 16. yüzyılda Avrupa Dünya Ekonomisinin Kökenleri. Latif Boyacı (çev.). İstanbul: Yarın.
• Wallerstein, I. (2011). Modern Dünya Sistemi cilt 3- Kapitalist Dünya Ekonomisinin Büyük Yayılımının İkinci Evresi: 1730-1840. Latif Boyacı (çev.). İstanbul: Yarın.
• Wallerstein, I. (2012). Modern Dünya Sistemi cilt 2- Avrupa Dünya Ekonomisinin Pekiştirilmesi ve Merkantilizm: 1600-1750. Latif Boyacı (çev.). ( 2. baskı). İstanbul: Yarın.
• Walt, M. (1998). International Relations: One world, many theories. Foreign Policy, Special Edition: Frontiers of Knowledge. 110, 29-32+34-46
• Waltz, K. N. (1986). Reflections on theory of International Politics: A response to my critics. Robert O. Keohane (Ed.). Neorealism and its critics. içinde (s. 322-345). New York: Columbia University Press.
• Watson, A. (1982). Diplomacy: The dialogue between states. Londra: Methuen.
• Watson, A. (1992). The evolution of International Society: A comparative historical analysis. Londra: Routledge.
• Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46, 391-425.
• Wheeler, N. J. (1992). Pluralist and solidarist conceptions of International Society: Bull and Vincent on Humanitarian Intervention. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 2, 463-489.
• Wight, M. (1966). Western Values in International Relations. Martin Wight, ve Herbert Butterfiled (Eds.). Diplomatic investigations: Essays in the theory of International Politics. içinde (s. 89-131). Londra: Allen and Unwin.
• Wight, M. (1977). International Relations by Hedley Bull. Hedley Bull (Ed.). Systems of states. içinde (s. 22-45). Leicester: Leicester University Press.
• Wight, M. (1986). Power politics. Hedley Bull ve Carsten Holbraad (Eds.). (2. baskı). New York: Penguin Books.
• Wight, M. (1987). An anatomy of International Thought. Review of International Studies. 13, 221-227.
• Wight, M (1992). International Theory: The three traditions. New York: Holmes & Meier.
• Wight, M. (2000). Why is there no International Theory. Andrew Linklater (Ed.). International Relations: Critical concepts in Political Science Vol. I. içinde (s. 35-48). New York: Routledge.
• Wight, M. (2005). Four seminal thinkers in International Theory: Machiavelli, Grotius, Kant, and Mazzini. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Yalvaç, F. (2011). Uluslararası İlişkiler Kuramında anarşi söylemi. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 8 (29), 67-88.
• Yurdusev, N. (2005). Uluslararası İlişkilere teorik bakmak. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 2 (6), 157-163.