Araştırma Makalesi


DOI :10.26650/SJ.2022.42.1.0102   IUP :10.26650/SJ.2022.42.1.0102    Tam Metin (PDF)

Askerî Sosyolojide Sivil-Asker Mesafesi Tartışmaları

Mustafa Yücehan AkalAdem Başpınar

Bu makalede sivil-asker mesafesi konusunun dayandığı kaynaklar, İkinci Dünya Savaşı’nı müteakip kuramsallaşma dinamikleri ve konu kapsamında gündeme gelen tartışmalarla birlikte mesafe boyutlarına dikkat çekilmiştir. Sivil-asker mesafesi, Soğuk Savaş döneminde Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nde daimî ve büyük bir ordunun toplum değerlerine tehdit oluşturduğu düşüncesiyle birlikte, sivil-asker ilişkilerinin bir konusu olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Demokrasi lehine en uygun ordu denetim modeli arayışlarında ortaya çıkan bu konu, askerlik hizmetindeki değişimler ve sivil-asker ilişkilerindeki gerilimlerin artmasına bağlı olarak akademik ilginin odağında olmuştur.

DOI :10.26650/SJ.2022.42.1.0102   IUP :10.26650/SJ.2022.42.1.0102    Tam Metin (PDF)

The Civil-Military Gap Debates in Military Sociology

Mustafa Yücehan AkalAdem Başpınar

This article draws attention to the dimensions of gap alongside the sources upon which the issue of civil-military gap is based, the theorizing dynamics following World War II, and the discussions that have come to the agenda within the scope of the subject. Civil-military gap emerged as a subject of civil-military relations in the United States during the Cold War, with the idea that a large and permanent standing army poses a threat to social values. This issue emerged in the search for the most appropriate military control model in favor of democracy and has been the focus of academic attention due to the changes in military service and the increase in tensions in civil-military relations.


GENİŞLETİLMİŞ ÖZET


Being isolated from social structures and physically separate, military structures have developed cultural habits, views, and behaviors different than civilians. As a sub-branch of sociology, the subject of civil-military relations for military sociology is aimed at addressing the areas where this subgroup (the military) differs from the upper group (society) using a holistic approach. The subject of the civil-military gap also takes its reference from here. Civil-military relations in Turkey have been analyzed through an assembly based on concessions and assumptions between civilians and soldiers by ignoring the social processes that have caused differences between the two groups. For this reason, our study attempts to explain the emergence and developmental stages of the civil-military gap debate as a missing dimension in the analysis of civil-military relations in Turkey.

As a part of the modern bureaucratic structure, militaries must be strong and organized to protect societal interests but weak enough to not direct this power against the society they protect (Feaver, 1999, p. 215). Upon examining this statement, two main issues of the civil-military relations debates become visible: What is the relationship between civilians and soldiers, who have a duty to protect the society and are equipped with different values and armed forces than the civilians, and how can this relationship be carried out in favor of democratic procedures?

One of the traditional concerns of civil-military relations is the military’s direct intervention in power where political authority is deprived of its powers. While this concern is the most serious point, another less worrying issue is that, even if a military does not destroy society, it will engage in a power struggle with the civilian authority and use its power to protect its own interests by not yielding to civilian superiority. Bernard Boëne (1990, p. 27) converted this into the following question: “How can society maintain a relationship of trust and harmony with those responsible for its security?” Answers to this question are grouped under three different designs of control: All the official laws and rules around the chain of command over which the military is accountable to society; integration of the military with social relations; sharing responsibility or providing cooperation through a division of labor among decision makers (Bland, 1999; Feaver, 2003; Huntington, 1957; Janowitz, 1961; Schiff, 1995).

In addition to investigating the areas of differences or similarities between soldiers and society, the civil-military gap also examines the dynamics that separate military and political leaders from each other and cause problems in national security assessments, as well as the presence of a potential culture (attitudes, views, values) that negatively threatens the civil-military relationship (Rahbek-Clemmensen et al., 2012). The civil-military gap debate shows “the effects of society, including military activity, on the role, structure and culture of the armed forces” on one hand and “the consequences for the reputation and legitimacy of the behavior of the armed forces as an organization that fights on behalf of society” on the other (Dandeker, 2001, p. 4). 

Civil-military relations in military sociology include the processes of control over the army by the civilian authority and the state and also examine how society and other state institutions relate to the military using survey-type studies (Başpınar, 2012b, p. 130).

Huntington (year) proposed an army of professional soldiers who are politically neutral, isolated from political processes, and fully focused on winning wars. In this direction, an absolute distinction is advocated between armed forces and social values and between the civilian and military spheres of influence in order to maintain military effectiveness and army functionality (Snider & Carlton-Carew, 1995, pp. 3–4). Rejecting the separation of military officers from civil society and creating a different structure, Janowitz viewed the separation between civil and military fields as both unnecessary and impossible (Caforio, 2006, pp. 17–18). Being separate from society, armed forces will cause a loss of reputation and meaning by jeopardizing the social acceptance they need (Janowitz, 1971; Steinbrecher & Biehl, 2021, p. 191). Janowitz additionally stated a dynamic relationship to exist between armed forces and society through personnel exchange (new recruits joining the army and retirees leaving the army).

Revisiting the issue in the post-Cold War era, Ricks (1997) was concerned about the potential and dangerous consequence of the weakening of American soldiers’ propensity to represent the community and about the military possibly becoming a semi-autonomous organization too large to be accountable to those it serves. Ricks supported his argument using three changes he had observed in the conditions of civil society, the military, and security: The military power as an actor in political processes has the potential for scaling through (1) the increasing detachment from civilian values with the transition to voluntary forces in the army, (2) the increasing emphasis on liberal values being in conflict with military values in civil society, and finally (3) the encounter with a permanent army larger than in times of peace as a result of changes in the international security environment, thus having the nature of threats be reinterpreted by civilians. The lack of empirical data was eliminated with the project study prepared with the support of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies (TISS) under the editorship of Feaver and Kohn. Later on, a project titled The Civil-Military Gap in the United States: Does It Exist, Why, and Does It Matter was prepared by RAND Cooperation under the editorship of Thomas S. Szayna with the support of the USA Armed Forces and focused on the 9/11 attacks and the impact of the Iraq War on civilian control.

The issue of the civil-military gap has also been on the agenda of European countries. Even though the abolition of compulsory military service and the transition to voluntary forces were discussed in the debate in France and Germany, due to the long history of voluntary military service in the UK, the debate involved the decline in the participation in the armed forces among the youth as well as the full inclusion of women, homosexuals, and ethnic minorities in the army (Kümmel, 2007; Strachan, 2010, Vennesson, 2010). 

The civil-military gap has been at the center of discussions on civil-military relations in the post-World War II era. Institutional approaches have emerged in this period and later turned into a multi-faceted debate over certain problem areas in the United States. Although the Turkish Armed Forces recruit human resources for its professional staff from certain segments of society, how they are distributed is unknown. Similarly, although the operation has expanded its sphere of influence to the international arena, which views are valid in political preferences and how the common values between soldiers differ from civilians are also unknown. Contrary to the political-military model of the past, the facts that significant differences exist in the democratic control processes of the modern period, that civil-military relations crises are experienced, and that solutions are needed in response to this suggest that civil-military gap studies in Turkey will increase. 


PDF Görünüm

Referanslar

  • Abrahamsson, B. (1972). Military professionalization and political power. SAGE Publications. google scholar
  • Akşit, B., Kalaycıoğlu, S., Varoğlu, K., & Çakar, M. (2007). A comparison of civil–military attitudes: The case of Turkey. In G. Caforio (Ed.). Cultural differences between the military and parent society in democratic countries (Contributions to Conflict Management, Peace Economics and Development) (pp. 319–325). https://doi.org/10.1016/s1572-8323(2007)4 google scholar
  • Akyürek, S., Serap, K. F., Atalay, E., & Bıçaksız, A. (2014). Sivil-asker ilişkileri ve ordu-toplum mesafesi. Bilgesam. google scholar
  • Astiz, C. A. (1969). Pressure groups and power elites in Peruvian politics. Cornell University Press. google scholar
  • Avant, D. (1998). Conflicting indicators of “crisis” in American civil-military relations. Armed Forces & Society, 24(3), 381. google scholar
  • Bacevich, A. J. (1997). The paradox of professionalism: Eisenhower, ridgway, and the challenge to civilian control, 1953-1955. The Journal of Military History, 61(2), 17. google scholar
  • Bacevich, A. J., & Kohn, R. H. (1997). Grand army of the republicans: Has the us military become a partisan force? The New Republic, 217(23–8), 22–25 google scholar
  • Baskir, L. M., & Strauss, W. A. (1978). Chance and circumstance: The draft. The war and the Vietnam generation. Vintage. google scholar
  • Başpınar, A. (2012a). Sosyolojinin konusu olarak ordu ve asker: Askeri sosyoloji. İstanbul University Journal of Sociology, 3(24), 279–314. google scholar
  • Başpınar, A. (2012b). Askeri sosyoloji: Tarih ve kaynaklar (Yüksek lisans tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul). google scholar
  • Başpınar, A. (2018). Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nde sivil-asker ilişkileri (Doktora tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul). google scholar
  • Bateman, R. L. (2008). The army and academic culture. Academic Questions, 21(1), 62–78. google scholar
  • Betros, L. (2001). Political partisanship and the military ethic in America. Armed Forces & Society, 27(4), 501–523. google scholar
  • Bianco W., & Markham, J. (2001). “Vanishing Veterans: The Decline of Military Experience in the U.S. Congress”. In P. D. Feaver & R. H. Kohn (Eds.), Soldiers and civilians: The civil-military gap and American national security (pp. 275–289). MIT Press. google scholar
  • Binkin, M. (1993). Who will fight the next war? Brookings Institution. google scholar
  • Bland, D. L. (1999). A unified theory of civil-military relations. Armed Forces & Society, 26(1), 7–25. google scholar
  • Bland, D. L. (2001). Patterns in liberal democratic civil-military relations. Armed Forces & Society, 27(4), 525–540. google scholar
  • Boëne, B. (1990). How “unique” should the military be? A review of representative literature and outline of a synthetic formulation. European Journal of Sociology, 31(1), 3–59. google scholar
  • Born, H. (2003). Democratic control of armed forces: Relevance, issues, and research agenda. G. Caforio (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of the military (pp. 151–165). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. google scholar
  • Brooks, R. A., & Brooks, R. (2008). Shaping strategy: The civil-military politics of strategic assessment. Oxfordshire: Princeton University Press. google scholar
  • Brotz, H., & Wilson, E. (1946). Characteristics of military society. American Journal of Sociology, 51(5), 371–375. google scholar
  • Burk, J. (2001). The Military’s presence in American society, 1950-2000. In P. D. Feaver & R. H. Kohn (Eds.), Soldiers and civilians: The civil-military gap and American national security (pp. 247–275). MIT Press. google scholar
  • Caforio, G., & Chatterji, M. (Eds.). (2007). Cultural differences between the military and parent society in democratic countries (Vol. 4). Elsevier. google scholar
  • Christopher Gelpi, C., & Feaver, P. D. (2002). Speak softly and carry a big stick? Veterans in the political elite and the American use of force. American Political Science Review, 96, 779–793. google scholar
  • Cohen, E. A. (2002). Supreme command: Soldiers, statesmen and leadership in wartime. Free Press. google scholar
  • Cohn, L. (1999). The evolution of the civil-military ‘gap’ debate” (Paper, Triangle Institute for security studies project on the gap between the military and civilian society, 1999). http://tiss-nc.org/ google scholar
  • Collins, J. J. (1998). The complex context of American military culture: A practitioner’s view. Washington Quarterly, 21(4), 213-228. google scholar
  • Dahl, R. A. (1998). On democracy. Yale University Press. Dandeker, C. (2000). The military in democratic societies: New times and new patterns of civilmilitary relations. In J. Kuhlmann & J. Callaghan (Eds.), Military and society in 21st century Europe: A comparative analysis (pp. 27–44). Lit Verlag and Transaction. google scholar
  • Dandeker, C. (2001). On the need to be different: Military uniqueness and civil-military relations in modern society. RUSI Journal, 146(3), 4–9. google scholar
  • de Tocqueville, A. (2016). Amerika’da demokrasi (S. Sertdemir Özdemir, Çev.). İletişim Yayınevi. google scholar
  • Desch, M. C. (1999). Civilian, control of the military: The changing security environment. Johns Hopkins University Press. google scholar
  • Desch, M.C. (1996). “Threat Environments and Military Missions” In Diamond, L., & Plattner, M. F. (Eds.), Civil-military relations and democracy (pp. 12–29). Johns Hopkins University Press google scholar
  • Dowd, J. J. (2001). Connected to society: The political beliefs of U.S. army generals. Armed Forces & Society, 27(3), 343–372. google scholar
  • Dunlap Jr, C. J. (1994). Welcome to the junta: the erosion of civilian control of the US military. Wake Forest Law Review., 29(2), 341–392 google scholar
  • Eisman, A. (2003). The media of manipulation: Patriotism and propaganda—mainstream News in the United States in the weeks following September 11. Critical Quarterly, 45(1–2), 55–72. google scholar
  • Ekirch, A. A. (1956). Civilian and the military: A history of the American anti-militarist tradition. Oxford University Press. google scholar
  • Eliot A. Cohen, E. A. (2000). Why the gap matters. The National Interest, 61, 38–48. google scholar
  • Feaver, P. D. (1996a). An American crisis in civilian control and civil-military relations? The Tocqueville Review, 17(1), 159–182. google scholar
  • Feaver, P. D. (1996b). The civil-military problematique: Huntington, Janowitz, and the question of civilian control. Armed Forces & Society, 23(2), 149–178. google scholar
  • Feaver P. D. (2003a). Armed servants: Agency, oversight, and civil–military relations. Harvard University Press. google scholar
  • Feaver, P. (2003b). The civil–military gap in comparative perspective. Journal of Strategic Studies, 26(2), 1–5. google scholar
  • Feaver, P. D., & Kohn, R. H. (Eds.). (2001). Soldiers and civilians: The civil-military gap and American national security. MIT Press. google scholar
  • Feaver, P. D. (1992) Guarding the Guardians: Civilian control of nuclear weapons in the United States. Cornell University Press. google scholar
  • Feaver, P. D. (1999). Civil-military relations. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 211–241. Feit, E. (1973) The armed bureaucrats. Houghton Mifflin. google scholar
  • Finer, S. E. (1976). The man on horseback: The role of military in politics. Penguin Books. google scholar
  • Fordham, B. O. (2001). Military ınterests and civilian politics: The ınfluence of civil-military “gap” on peacetime politics. In P. D. Feaver & R. H. Kohn (Eds.), Soldiers and civilians: The civilmilitary gap and American national security (pp. 327–360). MIT Press. google scholar
  • Foster, G. (1997). Confronting the crisis in civil-military relations. Washington Quarterly, 20(4), 15–33. google scholar
  • Fox, W. T. (1961). Representativeness and efficiency dual problem of civil-military relations. Political Science Quarterly, 354–366. google scholar
  • Ginsburgh, R. N. (1964). The challenge to military professionalism. Foreign Affairs, 42(2), 255–268. google scholar
  • Gronke, P., & Feaver, P. (2001). Uncertain confidence: Civilian and military attitudes about civilmilitary relations. In P. D. Feaver & R. H. Kohn (Eds.), Soldiers and civilians: The civil-military gap and American national security (pp. 121–169). MIT Press. google scholar
  • Hans, B. (2006). Democratic control of armed forces. In G. Caforio (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of the military (pp. 151–166). Springer. google scholar
  • Holsti, O. R. (1998/1999). A widening gap between the U.S. military and civilian society? Some evidence. International Security, 23(3), 5–42. google scholar
  • Holsti, O. R. (2001). Of Chasms and Convergences: Attitudes and Beliefs of Civilians and Military Elites at the Start of New Millenium, In P. D. Feaver & R. H. Kohn (Eds.), Soldiers and civilians: The civil-military gap and American national security (pp. 15–101). MIT Press. google scholar
  • Howard, B., & Everett W. (1946). Characteristics of military society. American Journal of Sociology, 51(5), 371-375. Howard, M. (1957) Soldiers and governments: Nine studies in civil-military relations. Eyre & Spottiswoode. google scholar
  • Huntington, S. P. (1956). Civilian control and the constitution. American Political Science Review, 50(3), 676–699. google scholar
  • Huntington, S. P. (1957). The soldier and the state: The theory and politics of civil- military relations. Harvard University Press. google scholar
  • Huntington, S. P., & Sheehan, J. J. (2008). Where have all the soldiers gone? The transformation of modern Europe. Houghton Mifflin. google scholar
  • Janowitz, M. (1971). The professional soldier: A social and political portrait. The Free Press. google scholar
  • Kemp, K., & Hudlin, C. (1992). Civil supremacy over the military: Its nature and limits. Armed Forces & Society, 19(1), 7–26. google scholar
  • Kerwin, J. G. (1948). Civil-military relationships in American life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. google scholar
  • Kier, E. (1997). Imagining war: French and British military doctrine between the wars. Princeton University Press. google scholar
  • Kier, E. (1999). Rights and fights: Sexual orientation and military effectiveness. International Security, 24(1), 194–201. google scholar
  • Kohn, R. H. (1974). The All-Volunteer Army: Too High a Price? Proceedings of the U. S. Naval Institute, 100(3/853), 35-42. google scholar
  • Kohn, R. H. (1994). Out of control: The crisis in civil-military relations. National Interest, 35(Spring), 3–17. google scholar
  • Kohn, R. H. (1997). How democracies control the military. Journal of Democracy, 8(October), 140–153. google scholar
  • Kohn, R. H. (2002). The erosion of civilian control of the military in the United States today. Naval War College Review, 55(Summer), 8–59. google scholar
  • Kohr, H.-U. (1989). Public opinion surveys on security policy and the armed forces: Policy polling or scientific research? SOWI-working paper no. 25, München, Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut der Bundeswehr. google scholar
  • Kourvetaris, G. A., & Dobratz, B. A. (1976). The present state and development of sociology of the military. Journal of Political & Military Sociology, 4(1), 67–105. google scholar
  • Kuhlman, J., & Callaghan, J. (Eds.). (2000). Military and society in 21st century Europe: A comparative analysis. Transaction. google scholar
  • Kümmel, G. (2002). The military and its civilian environment: Reflections on a theory of civil-military relations. Connections: The Quarterly Journal, 1(4), 63–82. google scholar
  • Kümmel, G. (2003). The winds of change: the transition from armed forces for peace to new missions for the Bundeswehr and its impact on civil–military relations. Journal of Strategic Studies, 26(2), 7–28. google scholar
  • Lang, K. (1972). Military institutions and the sociology of war: A review of the literature with annotated bibliography. Sage. google scholar
  • Lasswell, H. D. (1950). National security and individual freedom. McGrawHill google scholar
  • Luttwak, E. N. (1999). From Vietnam to desert fox: Civil-military relations in modem democracies. Survival, 41(1), 99–112. google scholar
  • Manigart, P. (1992). The future of security in Europe: A comparative analysis of European public ppinion. Brussels: Royal Military Academy. google scholar
  • Marina, N. (2006). Model and explanations for military organization: An updated reconsideration. In G. Caforio & M. Nuciari (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of the military (pp. 61–86). Springer google scholar
  • Martin, M. L. (1994). National security and democracy: The dilemma from a French perspective. Armed Forces & Society, 20(3), 395–421. google scholar
  • Maynes, C. W. (1998). The perils of (and for) an ımperial America. Foreign Policy, 111(Summer), 36–48. google scholar
  • Miller, L., & Williams, J. A. (2001). Do military policies on gender and sexuality undermine combat effectiveness? In P. D. Feaver & R. H. Kohn (Eds.), Soldiers and civilians: The civil-military gap and American national security (pp. 361–403). MIT Press. google scholar
  • Mills, C. W. (1974). İktidar seçkinleri (Ü. Oskay, Çev.). Bilgi Yayınevi. google scholar
  • Moskos Jr., C. C. (1970). The American enlisted man: The rank and file in today’s military. Russell Sage Foundation. google scholar
  • Moskos Jr., C. C. (1973). The emergent military: Civil, traditional, or plural? Sociological Perspectives, 16(2), 255–280. google scholar
  • Nordlinger, E. A. (1977). Soldiers in politics military coups and goverments. Prentice-Hall. google scholar
  • Owens, M. (2008). “Understanding civil-military relations during the Clinton-Bush Era. In D. S. Reveron & J. H. Stiehm (Eds.), Inside defense understanding the U.S. military in the 21st century (pp. 191–204). Palgrave Macmillan, New York. google scholar
  • Patricia M. Shields, P. M. (2006). Civil-military relations: Changing frontiers. Public Administration Review, 66, 924–928. google scholar
  • Perlmutter, A. (1969). The praetorian state and the praetorian army. Comparative Politics, 1(3), 382. google scholar
  • Perlmutter, A. (1977). The military and politics in modern times: On professionals, praetorians, and revolutionary soldiers. Yale University Press. google scholar
  • Perlmutter, A. (1977). The military and politics in modern times: on professionals, praetorians, and revolutionary soldiers. Yale University Press. google scholar
  • Pion-Berlin, D. (1992). Military autonomy and emerging democracies in South America. Comparative Politics, 25(1), 85–87. google scholar
  • Pion-Berlin, D. (2011). Turkish civil-military relations: A Latin American comparison. Turkish studies, 12(2), 293–304. google scholar
  • Rahbek-Clemmensen, J., Archer, E. M., Barr, J., Belkin, A., Guerrero, M., Hall, C., & Swain, K. E. (2012). Conceptualizing the civil–military gap: A research note. Armed Forces & Society, 38(4), 669–678. google scholar
  • Ricks, T. E. (1997). The widening gap between the military and society. Atlantic Monthly, 280(1), 67–78. google scholar
  • Roman, P. J., & Tarr, D. W. (1998). The joint chiefs of staff: From service parochialism to jointness. Political Science Quarterly, 113(1), 91–111. google scholar
  • Rukavishnikov, V. O., & Pugh, M. (2006). Civil-military ralations. G. Caforio & M. Nuciari (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of the military (p. 131). Springer. google scholar
  • Sarkesian, S. C., Williams, J. A., & Cimbala, S. J. (1995). US national security: Policymakers, processes and politics. Lynne Rienner. google scholar
  • Schiff, R. L. (1995). Civil-military recomsidered: A theory of concordance. Armed Forces and Society, 22(1), 7-24 google scholar
  • Schiff, R. L. (2008). The military and domestic politics: A concordance theory of civil-military relations. Oxon: Routledge. google scholar
  • Schiff, R. L. (2012). Concordance theory, targeted partnership, and counterinsurgency strategy. Armed Forces & Society, 38(2), 318–339. google scholar
  • Segal, D. R. (1975a). Civil-military relations in the mass public. Armed Forces & Society, 1(2), 215–229. google scholar
  • Segal, D. R. (1975b). Communication about the military: People and media in the flow of information. Communication Research, 2(1), 68–78. google scholar
  • Segal, D. R., Senter, M. S., & Segal, M. W. (1978). The Civil-Military İnterface in a Metropolitan Community. Armed Forces & Society, 4(3), 423–448. google scholar
  • Snider, D. M., & Carlton-Carew, M. A. (Eds.). (1995). US Civil-Military Relations: In Crisis or Transition? (Vol. 27). CSIS. google scholar
  • Snider, D. M., Priest, R. F., & Lewis, F. (2001). The civilian-military gap and professional education at the precommissioning level. Armed Forces & Society, 27(2), 249–272. google scholar
  • Snider, D., & Carlton-Carew, M. A. (1995). US civil- military relations: In crisis or transition? The Center for Strategic & International Studies. google scholar
  • Stanislav, A. (1968). Military organization and society. University of California Press. google scholar
  • Steinbrecher, M., & Biehl, H. (2020). The other civil-military gap: Researching public opinion on security and defence policy. In Research Methods in Defence Studies (pp. 189–209). Routledge. google scholar
  • Stepan A. (1988). Rethinking military politics: Brazil and the southern cone. Princeton University Press. google scholar
  • Stephan, A. C. (1988). Rethinking military politics: Brazil and Southern Cone. Princeton University Press. google scholar
  • Stiehm, J. H. (2001). Civil-military relations in war college Curricula. Armed Forces & Society, 27(2), 273–294. google scholar
  • Strachan, H. (2003). The civil-military ‘gap’in Britain. Journal of Strategic Studies, 26(2), 43–63. google scholar
  • Szayna, T. S., McCarthy, K. F., Marquis, J. P., Sollinger, J. M., & Demaine, L. J. (2007). The civilmilitary gap in the United States: Does it exist, why, and does it matter? (Vol. 379). Rand Corporation. google scholar
  • Szayna, T. S., McCarthy, K. F., Sollinger, J. M., Demaine, L. J., Marquis, J. P., & Steel, B. (2007). The civil military gap in the United States. The RAND Corporation google scholar
  • Turner, B. S. (1999). Classical sociology. Sage. Uluçakar, M. (2018). Türkiye’de sivil-asker ilişkileri: Eleştirel bir değerlendirme. Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi, 14(28), 187–227. google scholar
  • Vagts, A. A. (1967). History of militarism: Civilian and military. Free Press. Vennesson, P. (2003). Civil–military relations in France: is there a gap? Journal of Strategic Studies, 26(2), 29–42. google scholar
  • Vogt, W. R. (1986). Militär als Gegenkultur. Streitkräfte im Wandel der Gesellschaft (I). Opladen. google scholar
  • Vogt, W. R. (1988). Militär als Lebenswelt. Streitkräfte im Wandel der Gesellschaft (II). Opladen. google scholar
  • Vogt, W. R. (Ed.). (1983). Sicherheitspolitik und Streitkräfte in der Legitimitätskrise: Analysen zum Prozess der Delegitimierung des Militärischen im Kernwaffenzeitalter (Vol. 21). Nomos. google scholar
  • Von Bredow, W., & Kümmel, G. (2000). New roles for the armed forces and the concept of democratic control. In Kümmel G. & von Bredow W, (Eds.), Civil-military relations in an age of turbulence: Armed forces and the problem of democratic control (No. 21, pp. 109–131). SOWI. google scholar
  • Weber, M. (2006). Meslek olarak siyaset (A. Timuçin & M. Sert, Çev.). Çivi Yazıları. google scholar
  • Weigley, R. F. (1993). The American military and the principle of civilian control from McClellan to Powell. The Journal of Military History, 57(5), 27–58. google scholar
  • Welch, C. E. (1993). Changing civil-military relations. Global Transformation and the Third World, 71–90. google scholar

Atıflar

Biçimlendirilmiş bir atıfı kopyalayıp yapıştırın veya seçtiğiniz biçimde dışa aktarmak için seçeneklerden birini kullanın


DIŞA AKTAR



APA

Akal, M.Y., & Başpınar, A. (2022). Askerî Sosyolojide Sivil-Asker Mesafesi Tartışmaları. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, 42(1), 91-127. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2022.42.1.0102


AMA

Akal M Y, Başpınar A. Askerî Sosyolojide Sivil-Asker Mesafesi Tartışmaları. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi. 2022;42(1):91-127. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2022.42.1.0102


ABNT

Akal, M.Y.; Başpınar, A. Askerî Sosyolojide Sivil-Asker Mesafesi Tartışmaları. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, [Publisher Location], v. 42, n. 1, p. 91-127, 2022.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Akal, Mustafa Yücehan, and Adem Başpınar. 2022. “Askerî Sosyolojide Sivil-Asker Mesafesi Tartışmaları.” İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi 42, no. 1: 91-127. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2022.42.1.0102


Chicago: Humanities Style

Akal, Mustafa Yücehan, and Adem Başpınar. Askerî Sosyolojide Sivil-Asker Mesafesi Tartışmaları.” İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi 42, no. 1 (Dec. 2022): 91-127. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2022.42.1.0102


Harvard: Australian Style

Akal, MY & Başpınar, A 2022, 'Askerî Sosyolojide Sivil-Asker Mesafesi Tartışmaları', İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 91-127, viewed 7 Dec. 2022, https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2022.42.1.0102


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Akal, M.Y. and Başpınar, A. (2022) ‘Askerî Sosyolojide Sivil-Asker Mesafesi Tartışmaları’, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, 42(1), pp. 91-127. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2022.42.1.0102 (7 Dec. 2022).


MLA

Akal, Mustafa Yücehan, and Adem Başpınar. Askerî Sosyolojide Sivil-Asker Mesafesi Tartışmaları.” İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, vol. 42, no. 1, 2022, pp. 91-127. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2022.42.1.0102


Vancouver

Akal MY, Başpınar A. Askerî Sosyolojide Sivil-Asker Mesafesi Tartışmaları. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi [Internet]. 7 Dec. 2022 [cited 7 Dec. 2022];42(1):91-127. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2022.42.1.0102 doi: 10.26650/SJ.2022.42.1.0102


ISNAD

Akal, MustafaYücehan - Başpınar, Adem. Askerî Sosyolojide Sivil-Asker Mesafesi Tartışmaları”. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi 42/1 (Dec. 2022): 91-127. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2022.42.1.0102



ZAMAN ÇİZELGESİ


Gönderim26.11.2021
Kabul27.03.2022
Çevrimiçi Yayınlanma30.03.2022

LİSANS


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


PAYLAŞ




İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, uluslararası yayıncılık standartları ve etiğine uygun olarak, yüksek kalitede bilimsel dergi ve kitapların yayınlanmasıyla giderek artan bilimsel bilginin yayılmasına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları açık erişimli, ticari olmayan, bilimsel yayıncılığı takip etmektedir.