SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 38 Sayı: 2

From the Rule to the Exception: Beyond Developmentalism and Culturalism to the Capabilities of Historical Sociology

Kaideden İstisnaya: Gelişmecilik ve Kültürelciliğin Ötesinde Tarihsel Sosyolojinin İmkânları

Enes Kabakcı(İSTANBUL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)
Pages
403–440
Publication Date
2019-03-26
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Last to be emphasized will be the contributions of historical sociology, which stands out over these two poles and expresses a new interdisciplinary organization of social scientific knowledge in studies on the subject area of social and political change.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The paradigm of political development, based the projections of the mid-20th century’s idea of progress, left the central position it had occupied in comparative political science after World War II, first in quantitative research where the functionalist perspective was dominant, then in the culturalist approaches that were also nourished from anthropology.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Drawing on theories of universalist political development, which purport social change to be uniform and teleogical just like social change, this article places the processes that directly contemplate the culturalist approaches that lean toward particularizing the processes of social change by placing extreme emphasis on tradition under the microscope.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Last to be emphasized will be the contributions of historical sociology, which stands out over these two poles and expresses a new interdisciplinary organization of social scientific knowledge in studies on the subject area of social and political change.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Toplumsal ve siyasal değişim · İlerleme · Siyasal gelişme

Abstract

The paradigm of political development, based the projections of the mid-20th century’s idea of progress, left the central position it had occupied in comparative political science after World War II, first in quantitative research where the functionalist perspective was dominant, then in the culturalist approaches that were also nourished from anthropology. Drawing on theories of universalist political development, which purport social change to be uniform and teleogical just like social change, this article places the processes that directly contemplate the culturalist approaches that lean toward particularizing the processes of social change by placing extreme emphasis on tradition under the microscope. In addition, it aims to open these two approaches to debate the possibilities of historical sociology as an alternative. In line with this, the political developmental perspective, which unifies communities, will be examined through different manifestations by first claiming the field of inspiration and change to be an intrinsic process from classical sociology. Afterward, emerging culturalist approaches will be evaluated in parallel with inclusion of the concept of culture in analyses on social change, which in the social sciences has increasingly gained importance in the foreground of anthropology. Last to be emphasized will be the contributions of historical sociology, which stands out over these two poles and expresses a new interdisciplinary organization of social scientific knowledge in studies on the subject area of social and political change.

Özet

“İlerleme” düşüncesinin yirminci yüzyıl ortalarındaki izdüşümlerinden olan “siyasal gelişme” paradigması, İkinci Dünya Savaşı akabinde, karşılaştırmalı siyaset biliminde işgal ettiği merkezî yeri, önce işlevselci bir perspektifin hâkim olduğu nicel araştırmalara, ardından da antropolojiden beslenen kültürelci yaklaşımlara bırakmıştır. Bu makale, tıpkı toplumsal gibi siyasal değişimin de tekbiçimli ve ereksel olduğunu savlayan evrenselci “siyasal gelişme” kuramlarından, geleneğe aşırı vurgu yaparak siyasal değişim süreçlerini tikelleştirmeye yönelen “kültürelci” yaklaşımlara doğru seyreden süreci mercek altına almaktadır. Ayrıca, bu iki yaklaşıma alternatif olarak tarihsel sosyolojinin imkânlarını tartışmaya açmayı hedeflemektedir. Bu eksende; ilk olarak, klasik sosyolojiden ilham alan ve değişimin içsel bir süreç olduğunu iddia ederek toplumları tektipleştiren siyasal gelişmeci perspektif farklı tezahürleriyle incelenecektir. Ardından, sosyal bilimlerde antropolojinin giderek ön plana çıkmasıyla önem kazanan kültür kavramının toplumsal değişime dair çözümlemelere dâhil edilmesine koşut olarak ortaya çıkan, toplumların ve değişim süreçlerinin benzersizliğine vurgu yapan kültürelci yaklaşımlar değerlendirilecektir. Son olarak, bu iki kutba mesafeli duran, sosyal bilimsel bilginin interdisipliner yeni bir organizasyonunu ifade eden tarihsel sosyolojinin, toplumsal ve siyasal değişimi konu alan incelemelere sağlayacağı katkılar üzerinde durulacaktır

🔖

Cite This Article

Kabakcı, E. (2019). From the Rule to the Exception: Beyond Developmentalism and Culturalism to the Capabilities of Historical Sociology. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 38 Sayı: 2, 403–440. https://ajindex.com/articles/1258276

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (78)

  1. Abélès, M., & Jeudy, H.-P. (1997). Anthropologie du politique. Paris: Armand Colin.
  2. Almond, G. A. (1965). A developmental approach to political systems. World Politics, XVII(2), 183–214.
  3. Anderson, P. (1974b). Lineages of the absolutist state. London: New Left Books.
  4. Anderson, P. (1974a). Passages from antiquity to feudalism. London: New Left Books.
  5. Apter, D. (1955). The Gold Coast in transition. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  6. Apter, D. (1967). The politics of modernization. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  7. Apter, D. (1970). The role of traditionalism in the political modernization of Ghana and Uganda. In D. Apter (Ed.), Some conceptual approaches to the study of modernization. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs.
  8. Apter, D. (1972). Ghana in transition. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  9. Apter, D. (1988). Pour l’État, contre l’État. Paris: Économica.
  10. Aristote (1962). La politique. Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin.
  11. Aristote (1968). Politique. Paris: Société d’Édition Les Belles Lettres.
  12. Badie, B. (1988). Le transfert de technologie politique dans le monde arabe, de l’importation à l’innovation. Bulletin du CEDEJ, 23, 109–123.
  13. Badie, B. (1994). Le développement politique. Paris: Économica.
  14. Badie, B., & Birnbaum, P. (1982). Sociologie de l’État. Paris: Grasset.
  15. Balandier, G. (1967). Anthropologie politique. Paris: PUF.
  16. Balandier, G. (1970). Sociologie des mutations. Paris: Éditions Anthropos.
  17. Balandier, G. (1971). Sens et puissance. Les Dynamiques sociales. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
  18. Barnett, H. G. (1953). Innovation: The basis of cultural change. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
  19. Bastide, R. (1956). La causalité externe et la causalité interne dans l’explication sociologique. Cahiers internationaux de sociologie, XXI, 77–99.
  20. Bellah, R. N. (1965). Durkheim and History. In R. Nisbet (Ed.), Émile Durkheim (pp. 153–176). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
  21. Committee on Compartive Politics. (1971). A report on the activities of the Committee, 1954-70. New York: Social Science Research Council.
  22. Comte, A. (1975). Physique sociale. Cours de philosophie positive, leçons 46 à 60. Paris: Hermann. Coşkun, İ. (1989). Modernleşme kurami üzerine. Sosyoloji Dergisi, 3(1), 289–304.
  23. Cuche, D. (1996). La notion de culture dans les sciences sociales. Paris: Éditions la Découverte.
  24. Cuin, Ch.-H. (1997). Durkheim d’un siècle à l’autre, lectures actuelles des ‘Règles de la méthode sociologique’. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
  25. Déloye, Y. (1996). Sociologie historique du politique. Paris: Éditions la Découverte.
  26. Déloye, Y., & Ihl, O. (1996). Le XIXe siècle au miroir de la sociologie historique. Revue d’histoire du XIXe siècle, 13(2), 47–57.
  27. Durkheim, É. (1899). Önsöz. Année sociologique, II(1897-1898).
  28. Durkheim, É. (1902). De la division du travail social. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
  29. Durkheim, É. (1983). Les règles de la méthode sociologique. Paris: Quadrige/Presse Universitaire de France.
  30. Freyssinet, J. (1966). Le concept de sous-développement. Paris: Mouton & Cie.
  31. Fulbrook, M., & Skocpol, T. (1984). Destined pathways: The historical sociology of Perry Anderson.
  32. In T. Skocpol (Ed.), Vision and method in historical sociology (pp. 170–210). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  33. Geertz, C. (1968). Islam observed: Religious development in Morocco and Indonesia. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  34. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.
  35. Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge. Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York: Basic Books.
  36. Herskovits, M. J. (1952). Les bases de l’anthropologie culturelle. Paris: Payot.
  37. Hirschman, A. O. (1959). The strategy of economic development. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  38. Hirschman, A. O. (1991). The rhetoric of reaction: Perversity, futility, jeopardy. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
  39. Jaspers, K. (1967). Les grands philosophes (Vol. IV). Paris: Union Générale d’Éditions.
  40. Kabakcı, E. (2010). Sociologie versus Histoire? Quelques éléments de réflexion sur la place de la méthode historique dans les sociologies de Durkheim et de Gökalp. Sosyoloji Dergisi, 21(2), 179–186.
  41. Kabakcı, E. (2011). Durkheim ve Gökalp: Tarih, ideoloji ve sosyolojinin özerkliği meselesi. K. Tuna & İ. Coşkun (Ed.), Ziya Gökalp içinde (s. 205–217). Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı.
  42. Kaluszynski, M., & Wahnich, S. (1998). Historiciser la science politique. In M. Kaluszynski & S. Wahnich (Eds.), L’État contre la politique? Les expressions historiques de l’étatisation (pp. 17–33). Paris: Harmattan.
  43. Karpat, K. H. (1973). Structural change, historical stages of modernization, and the role of social groups in Turkish politics. In K. H. Karpat (Ed.), Social change and politics in Turkey: A structual- historical analysis (pp. 11–92). Leyde: E. J. Brill.
  44. Kluckhohn, C. (1953). Universal categories of culture. In A. L. Kroeber (Ed.), Anthropology today. An encyclopedic inventory (pp. 507–523). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  45. Kluckhohn, C., & Morgan, W. (1951). Some Notes on Navaho Dreams. In G. B. Wilbur & W. Muensterberger (Eds.), Psychoanalysis and culture (pp. 120–131). New York: International Universities Press.
  46. Leca, J., & Vatin, J.-C. (1975). L’Algérie politique. Institutions et régime. Paris: Presses de la Fondation nationale des sciences politiques.
  47. Leibnitz, G. W. (1930). La Monadologie. Paris: Librairie Delagrave.
  48. Lenclud, G. (1987). Anthropologie et histoire, hier et aujourd’hui, en France. In I. Chiva & U. Jeggle (Eds.), Ethnologies en miroir. La France et les pays de langue allemande (pp. 35–65) Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme.
  49. Lerner, D. (1964). The passing of traditional society: Modernizing the Middle East. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
  50. Levy, M. J. (1949). The family revolution in China. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  51. Levy, M. J. (1953). Contrasting Factors in the Modernization of China and Japan. Economic Development and Cultural Change, II(3), 161–197.
  52. Marx, K. (1969). Le Capital (Vol. I). Paris: Garnier-Flammarion.
  53. Marx, K. (1976). Le 18-Brumaire de Louis Bonaparte. Paris: Éditions Sociales.
  54. Mazrui, A. A. (1968). From social Darwinism to current theories of modernization. A tradition of analysis. World Politics, XXI(1), 69–83.
  55. Mills, C. W. (2000). The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.
  56. Murdock, G. P. (1946). The common denominator of cultures. In R. Linton (Ed.), The science of man in the world crisis (pp. 123–142). New York: Colombia University Press.
  57. Nisbet, R. A. (1969). Social change and history. Aspects of the western theory of development. New York: Oxford University Press.
  58. Nisbet, R. A. (1970). Developmentalism: A critical analysis. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology. Perspectives and developments (pp. 167–204). New York: Meredict Corporation.
  59. Parsons, T. (1961). An outline of the social system. In T. Parsons, E. Shils, K. D. Naegele, & J. R. Pitts (Eds.), Theories of society. Foundations of modern sociological theory (Vol. I). New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
  60. Parsons, T. (1964). A functional theory of change. In A. Etzioni & E. Etzioni (Eds.), Social change. Sources, patterns, and consequences (pp. 83–97). New York: Basic Books.
  61. Parsons, T. (1964a). The social system. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
  62. Parsons, T. (1966). Societies. Evolutionary and comparative perspectives. New Jersey: Prentice- Hall.
  63. Polk, W. R., & Chambers R. L. (1968). Beginnings of modernization in the Middle East: The nineteenth century. Chicago.
  64. Pye, L. W., & Verba S. (1972). Political culture and political development. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  65. Rostow, W. W. (1960). The stages of economic growth. A non-communist manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  66. Rostow, W. W. (1971). Politics and the stages of growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  67. Shils, E. (1968). Political development in the new states. The Hague: Mouton & Co.
  68. Skocpol, T. (1979). States and social revolutions. A comparative analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  69. Smith, T. (1985). Requiem or new agenda for Third World studies. World Politics, XXXVII(4), 532–561.
  70. Spencer, H. (1894). The study of sociology. London: Williams and Norgate.
  71. Steiner, P. (1995). Durkheim, la méthode sociologique et l’histoire. In M. Borlandi & L. Mucchielli (Eds.), La sociologie et sa méthode. Les Règles de Durkheim un siècle après (pp. 165–184). Paris: Harmattan.
  72. Thomas, N. (1998). Hors du temps. Histoire et évolutionnisme dans le discours anthropologique. Paris: Belin.
  73. Tilly, C. (1975). Western state-making and theories of political transformation. In C. Tilly (Ed.), The formation of national states in western Europe (pp. 601–638). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  74. Tilly, C. (1981). As Sociology meets history. New York: Academic Press.
  75. Tilly, C. (1984). Big structures, large processes, huge comparisons. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Tilly, C. (1989). L’histoire à venir. Politix, Printemps, 25–32.
  76. Tocqueville, A. (1952). Ancien Régime et la Révolution. In OEuvres complètes (Vol. II). Paris: Gallimard.
  77. Tunçbilek, Ş. S. (2018). Antropolojide siyasal dönemeç ve Georges Balandier’nin türbülans sosyolojisi (Yüksek lisans tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Sosyoloji Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul). https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/ adresinden edinilmiştir.
  78. Wallerstein, I. (2011). The modern world-system. Berkeley: University of California Press.