-
Loading...
Date
2018
Authors
Knud Erik Jørgensen
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Open Access Color
OpenAIRE Downloads
OpenAIRE Views
Abstract
Bu makale kuramsal bilginin değerli olduğu varsayımına dayanmakla beraber böyle bir varsayımın kendiliğinden kabul edilmesi doğru değildir. Gerçekten de makalenin ilk hedefi kuramsal bilginin karşılaştırmalı üstünlüğünü incelemektir. İkincisi ise şu soruya cevap vermektir: eğer kuram inşa etmek üzerine yapılan 100 çalıştay bir farklılık yaratacak olursa bu farklılık tam olarak ne olacaktır? Nihayetinde Bollywood Hollywood’dan daha fazla film üretmesine rağmen film yapımında dünya pazarı Hollywood’un hâkimiyeti altındadır. Bu nedenle akademik pazarlar arasında yurtiçi ve küresel olarak bir ayrım yapılacak olursa birtakım yurtiçi ve bölgesel pazarlara yönelik yapılan kuram inşası yurtiçi ve bölgesel marketlerdeki ‘tüketim’ kalıplarını etkileyebilir ama dünya marketi için aynı şeyin olacağı kesin değildir. Buna ek olarak 100 çalıştaya olan görünürdeki gereklilik Uluslararası İlişkiler disiplininin Amerikan hegemonyası altında olduğu varsayımına dayanmaktadır ancak bu varsayım Amerikan hegemonyasının kurumsal anlamda bir gerçek olmaya devam ettiği ancak dünyanın geri kalanında takip edilen kuramsal modalar ve tartışmalara bakıldığında durumun böyle olmadığını gösteren ampirik araştırmalarla sarsılmıştır. Kısacası entelektüel küresel hegemonya büyük ölçüde bir kuruntudur. Son olarak makale 100 çalıştayın gerekli olabileceği ancak iki neden yüzünden zaman kaybına dönüşebileceğini tartışmaktadır. Geçmişteki dünyayı kuramlaştırmakta bir sorun bulunmamaktadır ancak çalıştaylar güncel sorunlara hitap etmeli ve gelecek odaklı olmalıdır. Ayrıca çalıştaylar disiplinin (tartışmaya açık) çekirdeğinin yeniden tanımlanmasına katkıda bulunmalıdır.
Description
Keywords
Beşeri Bilimler-Bilim Felsefesi ve Tarihi-Uluslararası İlişkiler
Fields of Science
Citation
Alejando Audrey. “Eurocentrism Ethnocentrism and Misery of Position: International Relations in Europe - A problematic oversight.” European Review of International Studies 4 no. 1 (forthcoming 2017).\r\nAlejando Audrey Knud Erik Jørgensen Alexander Reichwein Felix Rösch and Helen Turton. Reappraising European IR Theoretical Traditions. London: Palgrave forthcoming 2017.\r\nBehr E. Hartmut. “The European Union in the Legacies of Imperial Rule? EU Accession Politics Viewed From A Historical Comparative Perspective.” European Journal of International Relations 13 no. 2 (2007): 239-62.\r\nBilgin Pinar. “How to Remedy Eurocentrism in IR? A Complement and a Challenge for the Global Transformation.” International Theory 8 no. 3 (2016): 492–501.\r\nBrown Chris. Practical Judgement in International Political Theory: Selected Essays. Abingdon: Routledge 2010.\r\nCallahan William A. \"China and the Globalisation of IR Theory: Discussion of 'Building International Relations Theory with Chinese Characteristics'.” Journal of Contemporary China 10 no. 26 (2001): 75-88.\r\nCarr E. H. The Twenty Years' Crisis 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. London: Palgrave 1946.\r\nChacko Priya. Indian Foreign Policy: The Politics of Postcolonial Identity from 1947 to 2004. Oxon: Routledge 2013.\r\nCzaputowicz Jacek and Anna Wojciuk. The Study of International Relations in Poland. Basingstoke UK: Palgrave Macmillan forthcoming 2017.\r\nDugin Alexander. “Theory Talk #66: Alexander Dugin on Eurasianism the Geopolitics of Land and Sea and a Russian Theory of Multipolarity.” By M. Millerman. Theory Talks December 7 2014. Accessed August 2 2016. http://www.theory-talks.org/2014/12/theory-talk-66.html.\r\nGuzzini Stefano. The Return of Geopolitics in Europe? Social Mechanisms and Foreign Policy Identity Crises. New York: Cambridge University Press 2012.\r\nHobson John M. The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory 1760-2010. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2012.\r\nHopf Ted. Social Construction of International Politics: Identities and Foreign Policies Moscow 1955 and 1999. Ithaca: Cornell University Press 2002.\r\nHolsti K.J. “Exceptionalism in American Foreign Policy: Is It Exceptional?” European Journal of International Relations 17 no. 3 (2010): 381-404.\r\nHutchings Kimberly. “Kimberly Hutchings on Quiet as a Research Strategy the Essence of Critique and the Narcissism of Minor Differences.” By A.S. Bang Lindegaard and P. Schouten Theory Talks October 10 2016. Accessed November 10 2016. http://www.theory-talks.org/2016/10/theory-talk-73-kimberly-hutchings.html.\r\nJørgensen Knud Erik. “After Hegemony in International Relations.” European Review of International Studies 1 no. 1 (2014): 57-64.\r\n——— . “Continental IR Theory: The Best Kept Secret.” European Journal of International Relations 6 no. 1 (2000): 9-42.\r\n——— . “Inter Alia.” International Studies Review (forthcoming 2017).\r\n———. International Relations Theory: A New Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan 2017.\r\n——— . “Towards a Six Continents Social Science: International Relations.” Journal of International Relations and Development 6 no. 4 (2004): 330-43.\r\nJørgensen Knud Erik and Reuben Wong. “Social Constructivist Perspectives on China-EU Relations.” In China the European Union and International Politics of Global Governance edited by Jianwei Wang and Weiqing Song 51-74. London: Palgrave 2015.\r\nJupille Joseph James A. Caporaso and Jeffrey T. Checkel. “Integrating Institutions Rationalism Constructivism and the Study of the European Union.” Comparative Political Studies 36 no. 1-2 (2003): 7-40.\r\nKatzenstein Peter J. “‘Walls’ Between ‘Those People’? Contrasting Perspectives on World Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 8 no. 1 (2010): 11-25.\r\nKeene Edward. Beyond the Anarchical Society: Grotius Colonialism and Order In World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2002.\r\nKeohane Robert O. and Stanley Hoffmann. “Conclusions: Community Politics and Institutional Change.” In The Dynamics of European Integration edited by William Wallace 276-300. London, New York: Pinter Publishers for the Royal Institute of International Affairs 1990.\r\nLake David A. “The New American Empire?” International Studies Perspectives 9 no. 3 (2008): 281-9.\r\n——— . “Why “isms” are Evil: Theory epistemology and academic sects as impediments to understanding and progress.” International Studies Quarterly 55 no. 2 (2011): 465-80.\r\nLangan Mark. “Budget Support and Africa–European Union Relations: Free Market Reform and Neo-Colonialism?” European Journal of International Relations 21 (2015): 101-21.\r\nLeca Jean. “La science politique dans le champ intellectuel français.” Revue française de science politique 4 (1982): 653-77.\r\nLegro Jeffrey W. and Andrew Moravcsik. “Is anybody still a realist?” International Security 24 no. 2 (1999): 5-55.\r\nLizée Pierre. A Whole New World: Reinventing International Studies for the Post-Western World. Basingstoke: Palgrave 2011.\r\nLong David. “Who Killed the International Studies Conference?” Review of International Studies 32 no. 4 (2006): 603-22.\r\nMallavarapu Siddharth. “Development of International Relations Theory in India: Traditions Contemporary Perspectives and Trajectories.” International Studies 46 no. 1-2 (2009): 165-83.\r\nMansour Imad. “A Global South Perspective on International Relations Theory.” International Studies Perspectives 18 (2016): 2-3. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/isp/ekw010.\r\nMearsheimer John J. and Stephen M. Walt. “Leaving Theory Behind: Why Simplistic Hypothesis Testing Is Bad For International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 19 no. 3 (2013): 427-57.\r\nMoravcsik Andrew. ‘‘Is something rotten in the state of Denmark? Constructivism and European integration.” Journal of European Public Policy 6 no. 4 (1999): 669-81.\r\nNau Henry R. “No Alternative to ‘isms’.” International Studies Quarterly 55 no. 2 (2011): 487-91.\r\nNau Henry R. and Deepa M. Ollapally eds. Worldviews of Aspiring Powers: Domestic Foreign Policy Debates in China India Iran Japan and Russia. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2012.\r\nOllapally Deepa M. and Rajesh Rajagopalan. “India: Foreign Policy Perspectives of an Ambiguous Power.” In Nau and Ollapally Worldviews of Aspiring Powers 73-113.\r\nPan Zhongqi. Conceptual Gaps in China-EU Relations: Global Governance Human Rights and Strategic Partnerships. Basingstoke: Palgrave 2012.\r\nPeters Ingo and Wiebke Wemheuer-Vogelaar eds. Globalizing International Relations. London: Palgrave 2016.\r\nPuchala Donald J. Theory and History in International Relations. London: Routledge 2003.\r\nPye Lucian W. The Spirit of Chinese Politics. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press 1992.\r\nQin Yaqing. “Relationality and Processual Construction: Bringing Chinese Ideas into International Relations Theory.” Social Sciences in China 30 no. 4 (2009): 5-20.\r\nQutb Sayed. Milestones. New Delhi: Islamic Book Service 2006.\r\nRosenau James N. and Mary Durfee. Thinking Theory Thoroughly: Coherent Approaches to an Incoherent World. Boulder CO.: Lynne Rienner 1995.\r\nRuggie John G. American Exceptionalism Exemptionalism and Global Governance. KSG Working Paper No. RWP04-006 Harvard University February 2004. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.517642.\r\n——— . “Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution.” International Organization 46 no. 3 (1992): 561-98.\r\n——— . “Reconstituting the Global Public Domain—Issues Actors and Practices.” European Journal of International Relations 10 no. 4 (2004): 499-531.\r\nSaid Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books 1978.\r\nScott David A. “Multipolarity Multilateralism and Beyond…? EU-China Understandings of the International System.” International Relations 27 no. 1 (2013): 30-51.\r\nShih Chih and Jiwu Yin. “Between Core National Interest and a Harmonious World: Reconciling Self Conceptions in Chinese Foreign Policy.” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 6 no. 1 (2013): 59-84.\r\nShlapentokh Dmitry. “Dugin’s Eurasianism: A Window on The Minds of the Russian Elite or an Intellectual Ploy?” Studies in East European Thought 59 no. 3 (2007): 215-36.\r\nTrenin Dmitri. Post-Imperium: A Eurasian Story. Washington DC.: Carnegie 2011.\r\nTsygankov Andrei P. “Self and Other in International Relations Theory: Learning from Russian Civilizational Debates.” International Studies Review 10 no. 4 (2008):762-75.\r\nvan Herpen Marcel H. Putin’s Wars: The Rise of Russia’s New Imperialism. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield 2014.\r\nWalt Stephen. “International Relations: One World Many Theories.” Foreign Policy 110 (1998): 29-46.\r\nWaltz Kenneth N. “Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory.” Journal of International Affairs 44 no. 1 (1990): 21-37.\r\nVitalis Robert. White World Order Black Power Politics: The Birth of American International Relations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press 2015.\r\nWang Yiwei. “The Identity Dilemmas of EU Normative Power: Observations from Chinese Traditional Culture.” In Normative Power Europe in a Changing World: A Discussion edited by A. Gerrits 67-76. The Hague: The Netherlands Institute of International Relations 2009.\r\nWæver Ole. “Securitization and Desecuritization.” In On Security edited by Ronnie Lipschutz 46-86. New York: Columbia University Press 1995.\r\nWendt Alexander. “Constructing International Politics.” International Security 20 no. 1 (1995): 71-81.\r\n
WoS Q
Scopus Q
Source
Volume
Issue
Start Page
End Page
Collections
