Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 74 - Sayı: 2

A Beckian Critique of the ‘International

ULUSLARARASI’NIN BECKÇİ ELEŞTİRİSİ

Pages
405–427
Publication Date
2022-10-11
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)

This paper, while examining the meaning of such transformation for IR in general and for transnational relations and foreign policy studies in specific, argues that the cosmopolitan approach, through going beyond methodological nationalism and beyond the problems of reductionism accompanying it, offers opportunities for the relevant fields of redefining the national, international, transnational and global as transnational structures and relations and of accordingly analysing them.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The sociologist Ulrich Beck – a pioneering figure in reflexive modernism, second modernity, cosmopolitanization and world risk society, and the scholar known within the International Relations (IR) by his works on risk society – argued that IR has retrospectively been built on the premises of the national condition, thus methodological nationalism is an intrinsic practice within the field, and to go beyond it a cosmopolitan methodology shall be embraced.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Based on this, this paper explores the intrinsic position of methodological nationalism within IR, discusses about the means and opportunities Ulrich Beck’s cosmopolitan sociology and methodology present in going beyond such misconduct and in this manner reflects on the changes and transformations the Beckian cosmopolitanism prescribes for the units and categories of analysis within the field.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This paper, while examining the meaning of such transformation for IR in general and for transnational relations and foreign policy studies in specific, argues that the cosmopolitan approach, through going beyond methodological nationalism and beyond the problems of reductionism accompanying it, offers opportunities for the relevant fields of redefining the national, international, transnational and global as transnational structures and relations and of accordingly analysing them.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The sociologist Ulrich Beck – a pioneering figure in reflexive modernism, second modernity, cosmopolitanization and world risk society, and the scholar known within the International Relations (IR) by his works on risk society – argued that IR has retrospectively been built on the premises of the national condition, thus methodological nationalism is an intrinsic practice within the field, and to go beyond it a cosmopolitan methodology shall be embraced. Based on this, this paper explores the intrinsic position of methodological nationalism within IR, discusses about the means and opportunities Ulrich Beck’s cosmopolitan sociology and methodology present in going beyond such misconduct and in this manner reflects on the changes and transformations the Beckian cosmopolitanism prescribes for the units and categories of analysis within the field. This paper, while examining the meaning of such transformation for IR in general and for transnational relations and foreign policy studies in specific, argues that the cosmopolitan approach, through going beyond methodological nationalism and beyond the problems of reductionism accompanying it, offers opportunities for the relevant fields of redefining the national, international, transnational and global as transnational structures and relations and of accordingly analysing them.

Özet

Refleksif modernleşme, ikinci modernite, kozmopolitanlaşma ve dünya risk toplumu kuramlarınınöncülerinden ve Uluslararası İlişkiler alanında özellikle risk toplumu üzerine çalışmalarıyla bilinen sosyologUlrich Beck, Uluslararası İlişkiler yazımının tarihsel olarak ulusal durum tasavvuru üzerine inşa edildiğini,metodolojik ulusçuluğun alana içkin bir pratik olduğunu ve bunun ötesine geçmek için kozmopolitan birmetodoloji takip edilmesi gerektiğini savunmaktadır. Buradan hareketle bu çalışma metodolojik ulusçuluğunUluslararası İlişkiler alanındaki içkin konumuna yönelik bir sorgu oluşturmakta, Ulrich Beck’in kozmopolitansosyolojisinin ve metodolojik kozmopolitanizminin ilgili yanlışın ötesine geçmek için sunduğu araçları veimkânları tartışmakta ve bu minvalde Beckçi kozmopolitanizmin alanda mevcut analiz birimleri ve kategorileriiçin öngördüğü değişim ve dönüşümleri tartışmaktadır. Çalışma, önerilen kozmopolitan dönüşümün anlamınıgenelde Uluslararası İlişkiler, özelde de Ulusötesi İlişkiler ve Dış Politika çalışmaları alanları için ayrı ayrısorgularken, kozmopolitan yaklaşımın metodolojik ulusçuluğu ve onun getirdiği indirgemeci sorunları aşarakilgili alanlara, temel araştırma kategorileri olan ulusalı, uluslararasını, ve küreseli ulusötesi nitelikli yapılar veilişkiler olarak yeniden tanımlama ve bu minvalde inceleme imkanı sunduğunu savunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

TABAK, H. (2022). A Beckian Critique of the ‘International. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, Cilt: 74 - Sayı: 2, 405–427. https://ajindex.com/articles/442887

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Barnett, Michael ve Kathryn Sikkink (2008), “From International Relations to Global Society,” Reus- Smit, Christian ve Duncan Snidal (Der), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 62-83.
  2. Beck, Ulrich (2000), “The cosmopolitan perspective: sociology of the second age of modernity”, British Journal of Sociology 51(1): 79-105.
  3. Beck, Ulrich (2002), “The Cosmopolitan Society and its Enemies,” Theory, Culture & Society 19 (1- 2): 17-44.
  4. Beck, Ulrich (2003a), “Toward a New Critical Theory with a Cosmopolitan Intent.” Constellations 10(4): 453-468.
  5. Beck, Ulrich (2003b) “Rooted Cosmopolitanism: Emerging from a Rivalry of Distinctions”, Beck, Ulrich, Natan Sznaider ve Rainer Winter (Der), Global America? The Cultural Consequences of Globalization, (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press): 15-29.
  6. Beck, Ulrich (2005a) Power in the Global Age: A new global political economy (Cambridge: Polity Press). Beck, Ulrich (2005b) “War is Peace: On Post-National War,” Security Dialogue 36(1): 5-26.
  7. Beck, Ulrich (2006) Cosmopolitan Vision (Cambridge: Polity Press). Beck, Ulrich (2007a), “The Cosmopolitan Condition: Why Methodological Nationalism Fails”, Theory, Culture & Society 24(7-8): 286-290.
  8. Beck, Ulrich (2007b), “Beyond class and nation: reframing social inequalities in a globalizing World”, The British Journal of Sociology 58(4):679-705.
  9. Beck, Ulrich (2008) “Mobility and the Cosmopolitan Perspective”, Canzler, Weert, Vincent Kaufmann ve Sven Kesselring (Der), Tracing mobilities: Towards a cosmopolitan perspective (Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing): 25-35.
  10. Beck, Ulrich (2009), “Critical Theory of World Risk Society: A Cosmopolitan Vision”, Constellations 16(1): 3-22.
  11. Beck, Ulrich (2009), World at Risk (Cambridge: Polity). Beck, Ulrich and Christoph Lau (2005) “Second modernity as a research agenda: theoretical and empirical explorationsin the ‘meta-change’ of modern society,” The British Journal of Sociology 56(4): 525-557.
  12. Beck, Ulrich ve Edgar Grande (2010), “Varieties of second modernity: the cosmopolitan turn in social and political theory and research”, The British Journal of Sociology 61(3): 409-443.
  13. Beck, Ulrich ve Natan Sznaider (2006), “Unpacking cosmopolitanism for the social sciences: a research agenda”, The British Journal of Sociology 57(1): 1-23.
  14. Beck, Ulrich, Wolfgang Bonss ve Christoph Lau (2003), “The Theory of Reflexive Modernization Problematic, Hypotheses and Research Programme,” Theory, Culture & Society 20(2): 1– 3