Araştırma Makalesi


DOI :10.26650/SJ.2022.42.1.0103   IUP :10.26650/SJ.2022.42.1.0103    Tam Metin (PDF)

Ebedi Barış ve Askeri Sosyoloji İlişkisi Üzerine Bir İnceleme

Sedat Doğan

Modern düşünce adına bir kırılmayı temsil eden Immanuel Kant’ın eleştirel dönemindeki politik yazıları her zaman önemini korumuştur. Kant’ın Ebedi Barış Üstüne Felsefi Deneme adlı metni bu yazılardan biridir. On sekizinci yüzyılın başlarında belirgin hale gelen ebedi barış gündemi, Kant’ın bu metninden anlaşılan, yüzyılın sonunda hala gündemdeydi. Bunun nedeni Otuz Yıl Savaşları’nın ardından kurulan Westphalia düzeninin dinamosunun Avrupa içinde hüküm süren savaşlar olmasıdır. Dönemin hemen her düşünürü savaş ve barış üzerine kafa yormuş görünmektedir. Fakat özellikle on dokuzuncu yüzyılda kurulup kurumlaşmaya başlayan sosyoloji açısından savaş ve savaş dolayımıyla asker ve ordu konuları, barıştan daha kalıcı bir gündem olagelmiştir. Sosyolojinin toplumsal gerçekliği tasvir etme ve tespit edilen sorunları çözme yönündeki işlevi, toplumsal gerçekliğin bir parçası olarak gerçekleşmemiş bir barışı arızi bir konu haline getiriyordu. Disiplinin özerkliği ve barışın arızi konumu nedeniyle asker, ordu ve savaş konusundaki sosyolojik birikim zamanla savaş ve barışın felsefi teorisine yabancılaşmıştır. İkinci Dünya Savaşı koşullarında çağdaş askeri sosyolojinin kurumlaşması ise klasik sosyolojideki birikimi bile ikincil hale getirmiştir. Bu gelişmelerin aksine, elinizdeki makale savaş ve barışın felsefi teorisi ile sosyolojik açıklaması arasında köklü bağlantılar bulunduğu varsayımına dayanmaktadır. Makalenin amacı, bu bağlantının bir örneği olarak, Kant’ın adı geçen metnindeki normatif önerilerin kendisine olgusal tespitlerin askeri sosyoloji perspektifinden incelenebileceğini göstermektir.

DOI :10.26650/SJ.2022.42.1.0103   IUP :10.26650/SJ.2022.42.1.0103    Tam Metin (PDF)

Examining the Relationship between Perpetual Peace and Military Sociology

Sedat Doğan

Immanuel Kant’s political writings, which represent a philosophical revolution in the name of the modern world, have always remained important. Kant’s Perpetual Peace is one of these writings. The agenda of perpetual peace, which became evident in the early eighteenth century, was still on the agenda at the end of the century, as is evident from this text of Kant. The reason for this is that the dynamo of the Westphalian order established after the Thirty Years’ War was the wars that prevailed in Europe. Almost every thinker of the period seems to have pondered on war and peace. However, especially in terms of sociology, which was established and institutionalized in the nineteenth century, war have become a more permanent agenda than peace. The function of sociology in describing social reality and solving identified problems made an unrealized peace as a part of social reality an accidental issue. Due to the autonomy of the discipline and the accidental position of peace, sociological knowledge of the soldier, army and war has become alienated from the philosophical theory of war and peace over time. The institutionalization of contemporary military sociology in the conditions of the Second World War made even the accumulation in classical sociology secondary. Contrary to these developments, the present article is based on the assumption that there are deep-rooted links between the philosophical theory of peace and sociological explanation of war. The aim of the article, as an example of this connection, is to show that the factual determinations on which the normative proposals in Kant’s aforementioned text are based can be examined from the perspective of military sociology.


GENİŞLETİLMİŞ ÖZET


How can a connection be established between the philosophical theory of war and peace and its sociological explanations? For instance, one may pose the question, “Through which variables can a potential link be established between Kant’s text on perpetual peace and the current literature on military sociology?” While Kant does have a philosophical essay on perpetual peace, he does not have a separate text on war; on the other hand, the current military psychology is considered the specific sociological discipline on military service, the military, and war in which peace is viewed as an incidental theme. Despite the relationships philosophy has with the social sciences in general and sociology in particular appear disconnected, some points of contact are still identifiable. This article is based on the assumption that significant direct and indirect connections are present apart from the limited points of contact, especially in the case of Kant.

Kant’s critical philosophical project has evolved as a philosophical basis for legitimate science, secular morality, and perpetual peace, both nationally and internationally. Due to the political arena involving perpetual peace ultimately coming face to face with the historical world, however, this field can neither be characterized by moral principles not be the subject of scientific knowledge. Kant identified perpetual peace as a conceivable hope. Not only did European history witness events while Kant was alive that would show this hope to be practically impossible, some of Kant’s contemporaries and disciples appeared more inclined to develop a theory of possible absolute warfare. This situation resulted in Kant’s views on peace coming to a standstill as a frustrated utopia; in terms of the social sciences, the subject was stuck within the framework of political science and international relations. Historians are accepted from the sociological point of view to record individual wars in terms of what occurred, while philosophers explore the nature of war. In terms of sociology, war accordingly can first and foremost be explained or understood in terms of these individual events being social phenomena. In terms of our hypothesis, this scenario is a problematic distinction that was established in the 19th century.

In the conditions under which sociology emerged as an autonomous science, it possessed the claim of producing scientific knowledge about “that which is social” in the broadest sense. Since the first founding methodological studies of sociology, however, various sociological approaches have emerged in light of the nature of what is social and the conditions of knowledge, namely the issue of the object and meaning specific to sociology. The categories prominent in terms of the issue of object have perpetuated as social relations, social phenomena, social interactions, and social action. In terms of the issue of meaning, the basic distinction emerges between explanation and understanding. These similar alternatives that propel and govern a prospective research practice are clearly consistent with philosophical theories. In fact, the studies that began under the conditions of World War II in Europe and America and gained momentum since the 1970s have added a detailed critique of the methodological issues in sociology to projects in regard to the general restructuring of the social sciences. However, no adaptation of these criticisms to military sociology has been observed nor the tendency of any study questioning the methodological foundations in military sociology. On the contrary, military sociology presents itself as a discipline that has emerged under the conditions of World War II.

The philosophical theories of war and peace within the self-presentation of military sociology clearly have not been able to find room within the discipline. Moreover, the assumption that archaic topics such as military service, the military, and war first came together in specific research within military sociology implicitly neglects classical sociology. In fact, military sociology has presented itself problematically as an autonomous discipline by seeking concrete, practical solutions regarding the issues within the US military since World War II. To accept the self-presentation of military sociology means to implicitly narrow sociology to the boundaries of specific research practices in accordance with American sociology. However, constructing a solid general framework for this discipline cannot be done by simply looking at military sociology studies, as the theoretical and social sources of the discipline are older. The closer one gets to these sources, the clearer the possible links become between the philosophical theories of peace and military sociology.

War is a relational notion that operates within a certain dynamic of change and continuity in terms of historical-social relations. The moment a war emerges within historical space, it cannot be positioned between the past and future by considering the war as a concrete object a researcher can hold or oppose with respect to its internal or external borders. For this reason, a given historical moment can by no means be characterized by a certain phenomenon with reference to an obligatory choice between a state of war and peace. However, current ideas have developed in the following directions: (i) historical warfare against an ahistorical ideal of peace, (ii) the historical incarnation of the ahistorical opposition of war and peace, and (iii) the historical dialectic and displacement between war and peace. The ahistorical category of these alternatives in moral and legal character also being essentially historical (i.e., the place of meaning being determined historically) shows the deep relationship among the three possibilities. Kant was the one to establish this relationship for the first time; this is because history as is known in Western thought parallels the relevant modernity, and Kant was the first to declare the original ahistorical context illegitimate by way of historically identifying the place meaning has in relation to the object of research. Thus, both sides of the historical and ahistorical (ideological) distinction in the social sciences are essentially based on a historical-relational ultimate basis in the sense of the “here and now.” The result of Kant’s attempt was the derivation of historical and  ahistorical categories from within what is historical contained in the logic of the sciences. The distinction between historical and ahistorical in sociology is seen between positivism and historicism in particular. However, this distinction is fictional, and the prevalent ahistorical category is actually ideological. Namely, this distinction is primarily embedded in a limited historical context through America during and after World War II in terms of contemporary military sociology.

The purpose of this article is to attempt to answer the research question using Kant’s text Perpetual Peace. The article first points out the opening of the basic connection between philosophical theory and sociological explanation in general and then the interrelationship between the philosophical theory of perpetual peace and social analysis in particular. As a result, the searches for solutions to the highly diversified concrete, practical problems of military sociology have been conducted over a deep structure composed of theoretical and social sources, and this structure is problematic from a metatheoretical point of view. 


PDF Görünüm

Referanslar

  • Arendt, H. (2005). Kant’ın siyaset felsefesi üzerine notlar. Cogito, 340-380. google scholar
  • Başpınar, A. (2010). Askeri sosyoloji: Tarih ve kaynaklar (Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul). https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/ google scholar
  • Başpınar, A. (2012). Sosyolojinin konusu olarak ordu ve asker: Askeri sosyoloji. Sosyoloji Dergisi, 3(24), 279-314. google scholar
  • Belge, M. (2012). Militarist modernleşme. İletişim Yayınları. google scholar
  • Benton, T., & Craib, I. (2008). Sosyal bilim felsefesi (Ü. Tatlıcan, & B. Binay, Çev.). Sentez Yayıncılık. google scholar
  • Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (2003). Düşünümsel bir antropoloji için cevaplar (N. Ökten, Çev.). İletişim Yayınları. google scholar
  • Bröckling, U. (2008). Disiplin: Askeri itaat üretiminin sosyolojisi ve tarihi (V. Atayman, Çev.). Ayrıntı Yayınları. google scholar
  • Caforio, G. (2017). Bazı tarihsel notlar. G. Caforio (Ed.) Askeri sosyoloji içinde (s. 7-26). Nobel Yayıncılık. google scholar
  • Choi, S.-W., & James, P. (2003). No propfessional soldiers, no militarized interstate dusputes? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47(6), 796-816. google scholar
  • Çınar, M. U. (2017). Rousseau ve Kant ile Avrupa’da kalıcı barışa ve Avrupa Birliği’ne dair. Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi, 16(1), 61-80. google scholar
  • Elias, N. (2016). Sosyoloji nedir? (O. Değirmenci, Çev.). Olvido Kitap. Geier, M. (2018). Kant’ın dünyası (E. Özbek, Çev.). İletişim Yayınları. google scholar
  • GulbenkianKomisyonu. (1996). Sosyal bilimleri açın (Ş. Tekeli, Çev.). Metis Yayıncılık. google scholar
  • Hazard, P. (1981). Batı düşüncesindeki büyük değişme (E. Güngör, Çev.). Tur Yayınları. google scholar
  • Hentch, T. (1996). Hayali Doğu (A. Bora, Çev.). Metis Yayınları. google scholar
  • Hobbes, T. (2019). Leviathan (S. Lim, Çev.). Yapı Kredi Yayınları. google scholar
  • Hobbes, T. (2020). Behemoth ya da İngiltere İç Savaşının içyüzü (A. Yılmaz, Çev.). Vakıfbank Kültür Yayınları. google scholar
  • Kant, I. (1960). Ebedi barış üstüne felsefi deneme. AÜSBF Yayınları. google scholar
  • Kant, I. (1979). The conflict of the faculties (M. J. Gregor, Çev.). Abaris Book. google scholar
  • Kant, I. (1993). Arı usun eleştirisi (A. Yardımlı, Çev.). İdea Yayınevi. google scholar
  • Kant, I. (1999). Pratik aklın eleştirisi (İ. Kuçuradi, Çev.). Türkiye Felsefe Kurumu. google scholar
  • Kant, I. (2007). Salt aklın sınırları dahilinde din (L. Çilingir, & A. Avcan, Çev.). Elis Yayınları. google scholar
  • Kant, I. (2014). “Aydınlanma nedir?” sorusuna yanıt. N. Bozkurt (Ed.) Seçilmiş yazılar içinde (N. Bozkurt, Çev., s. 313-326). Sentez Yayıncılık. google scholar
  • Kant, I. (2014). Dünya yurttaşlığı amacına yönelik genel bir tarih düşüncesi. D. Özlem & G. Ateşoğlu (Ed.), Tarih felsefesi: Seçme metinler içinde (D. Özlem, Çev., s. 31-47). Doğu Batı Yayınları. google scholar
  • Kant, I. (2016). Yargı yetisinin eleştirisi (A. Yardımlı, Çev.). İdea Yayınevi. google scholar
  • Karaosmanoğlu, A. L. (2007). Muhteşem ortaklık: Kant ve Clausewitz. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 4(14), 161-183. google scholar
  • Kuehn, M. (2017). Immanuel Kant (B. O. Doğan, Çev.). Türkiye İş Bankası. google scholar
  • Kümmel, G. (2017). Bir asker bir askerdir, bir asker midir? G. Caforio (Ed.), Askeri sosyoloji içinde (s. 417-430). Nobel Yayıncılık. google scholar
  • Layder, D. (2006). Sosyal teoriye giriş. Küre Yayınları. google scholar
  • Moskos, C. (1992). The warless society. In J. Kuhlmann, & C. Dandeker (Ed.), Armed forces after the Cold War (pp. 1-33). SOWI. google scholar
  • Nuciari, M. (2017). Askeri kurumlara dair açıklama ve modeller. G. Caforio (Ed.), Askeri sosyoloji içinde (s. 61-86). Nobel Yayıncılık. google scholar
  • Öner, N. (2011). Fransız sosyoloji okuluna göre mantığın menşei problemi. Divan Kitap. google scholar
  • Özlem, D. (1999). Max Weber’de bilim ve sosyoloji. Küyerel Yayınları. google scholar
  • Özlem, D. (2004). Mantık. İnkılap Kitabevi. google scholar
  • Ritzer, G. (2001). Explorations in social theory. Sage. google scholar
  • Shaw, M. (1991). Post military society. Polity Press. google scholar
  • Tilly, C. (2001). Zor, sermaye ve Avrupa devletlerinin oluşumu (K. Emiroğlu, Çev.). İmge Kitabevi. google scholar
  • Wood, A. W. (2009). Kant (A. Kovanlıkaya, Çev.). Dost Yayınları. google scholar

Atıflar

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


DIŞA AKTAR



APA

Doğan, S. (2022). Ebedi Barış ve Askeri Sosyoloji İlişkisi Üzerine Bir İnceleme. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, 42(1), 191-215. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2022.42.1.0103


AMA

Doğan S. Ebedi Barış ve Askeri Sosyoloji İlişkisi Üzerine Bir İnceleme. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi. 2022;42(1):191-215. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2022.42.1.0103


ABNT

Doğan, S. Ebedi Barış ve Askeri Sosyoloji İlişkisi Üzerine Bir İnceleme. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, [Publisher Location], v. 42, n. 1, p. 191-215, 2022.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Doğan, Sedat,. 2022. “Ebedi Barış ve Askeri Sosyoloji İlişkisi Üzerine Bir İnceleme.” İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi 42, no. 1: 191-215. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2022.42.1.0103


Chicago: Humanities Style

Doğan, Sedat,. Ebedi Barış ve Askeri Sosyoloji İlişkisi Üzerine Bir İnceleme.” İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi 42, no. 1 (Dec. 2022): 191-215. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2022.42.1.0103


Harvard: Australian Style

Doğan, S 2022, 'Ebedi Barış ve Askeri Sosyoloji İlişkisi Üzerine Bir İnceleme', İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 191-215, viewed 7 Dec. 2022, https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2022.42.1.0103


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Doğan, S. (2022) ‘Ebedi Barış ve Askeri Sosyoloji İlişkisi Üzerine Bir İnceleme’, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, 42(1), pp. 191-215. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2022.42.1.0103 (7 Dec. 2022).


MLA

Doğan, Sedat,. Ebedi Barış ve Askeri Sosyoloji İlişkisi Üzerine Bir İnceleme.” İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, vol. 42, no. 1, 2022, pp. 191-215. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2022.42.1.0103


Vancouver

Doğan S. Ebedi Barış ve Askeri Sosyoloji İlişkisi Üzerine Bir İnceleme. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi [Internet]. 7 Dec. 2022 [cited 7 Dec. 2022];42(1):191-215. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2022.42.1.0103 doi: 10.26650/SJ.2022.42.1.0103


ISNAD

Doğan, Sedat. Ebedi Barış ve Askeri Sosyoloji İlişkisi Üzerine Bir İnceleme”. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi 42/1 (Dec. 2022): 191-215. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2022.42.1.0103



ZAMAN ÇİZELGESİ


Gönderim26.11.2021
Kabul12.03.2022
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.