Journals / International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanity Studies / 2011 / Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2

THE BARRIER TO SOCIAL DYNAMICS IN TURKEY: AUTHORITARIAN MENTALITY AND STATISM

Pages
341–353
Publication Date
2011-12-01
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 study aims at investigating what might be the costs of preventing social dynamics regarding the planner, statist and authoritarian state perception in Turkey

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The fundamental agent that helps a society to develop is the society’s ability in presenting its own dynamics – social, political and economic – freely.
📊
Key Findings & Data:As far as the above mentioned notion is fulfilled, the society may enter in the process of a momentum of development by itself.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This study aims at investigating what might be the costs of preventing social dynamics regarding the planner, statist and authoritarian state perception in Turkey
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Authoritarian management · statism · social dynamics

Abstract

The fundamental agent that helps a society to develop is the society’s ability in presenting its own dynamics – social, political and economic – freely. As far as the above mentioned notion is fulfilled, the society may enter in the process of a momentum of development by itself. Today, the people living in a variety of countries are not allowed to put forth their own dynamics regardless of the regime, whether republic or totalitarian. This is sometimes preferred to preserve the power and sometimes to impose an ideology on the society. They do not hesitate to enforce their decisions, which they regard as the representative of a noble mind, for their countries or institutions whatever the cost is. In this sense, “Statism”, by its very nature, has brought about an authoritarian constitution in Turkey. A planner-statist structure, formed on reasonable grounds in the beginning, has deviated from its aim and become a barrier to the dynamism in which social class differences can be produced as long as the society continues pursuing design perception. This study aims at investigating what might be the costs of preventing social dynamics regarding the planner, statist and authoritarian state perception in Turkey

🔖

Cite This Article

ATEŞOĞLU, N., AKÇAOĞLU, Ö. (2011). THE BARRIER TO SOCIAL DYNAMICS IN TURKEY: AUTHORITARIAN MENTALITY AND STATISM. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanity Studies, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2, 341–353. https://ajindex.com/articles/997010

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (28)

  1. Ahmad, F. (1995), Modern Türkiye’nin Oluşumu, Çev. Yavuz Alogan, Sarmal Yayınevi, istanbul. Akay, A. “Modernliğin Başlangıcı”, Hürriyet Gösteri Dergisi,, 11/10/2007.
  2. Akçura, Y. (2005),
  3. Üç Tarz-ı Siyaset, Lotus Yayınevi,
  4. Ankara.
  5. Allard, E. (1971), Institionalized Radicalism in Decline of Ideology. (New York). Altan, M. “Avrupa Parlamentosu’ndaki Konusma”,, 30 Mart 2005
  6. Althuser, Louis. (1991), İdeoloji ve Devletin İdeolojik Aygıtları. (Çev: Yusuf Alp-Mahmut Özışık).İstanbul:
  7. İletişim Yayınları.
  8. Ardigo, Archillo. (1987), “The Moral Question and Legitimation”. Current Sociology. V:5-2, Sum. Arent,Hannah. (1998), Totalitarizmin Kaynakları II: Emperyalizm.(Çev: Bahadır Sina Şener). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
  9. Berger Peter L.-Thomas Luckmann. (1967), The Social Construction of Reality. (New York:Anchor). Black, Cyril E. (1989), Çağdaşlaşmanın İtici Güçleri. (Çev: M. Fatih Gümüş). Ankara:
  10. Verso Yayınları.
  11. Bourricaut, François. (1987), “Legitimacy and Legtimation”. Current Sociology. V:5-2,
  12. Sum. Cangızbay, K. (2000),
  13. Hiçkimsenin Cumhuriyeti, Ütopya Yayınları, Ankara. Ceylan T,( 2002),
  14. Batı ve Batılılaşma Eleştirisi, EKEV Akademi Dergisi, Yıl: 6 Sayı: 13 Çetin H, (2003), “Gelenek ve Degisim Arasında Kriz: Türk Modernlesmesi”, Dogu- Batı Dergisi, Yıl: 7, Sayı: 25, Kasım-Aralık-Ocak 2003-2004, ss.11-40.
  15. Dagı, D. i. (2001), “Avrupa Birliği ve Türkiye: Batılılaşmanın Neresindeyiz?”, Demir,S. & Sesli,M. & Yılmaz,V., Türk Modernleşmesi: Eleştirel Bir Bakış / Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2, (2008: 77-90)
  16. Dietz, M. (1993), “Baglam Herseydir: Feminizm ve Yurttaslık Teorileri”, (Çev. Esin Asena), Birikim Dergisi, 55: 82-94.
  17. Erdogan. M. (2000),
  18. Demokrasi, Laiklik, Resmi İdeoloji, 2. Baskı,
  19. Liberte Yay.Ankara.
  20. Erdoğan, Mustafa. (1995),
  21. Demokrasi, Laiklik, Resmi İdeoloji. Ankara:
  22. LDT.Yayınları.
  23. Friedrich, Carl J.-Zbigniev K. Brzezinski. (1964), Totaliter Diktatörlük ve Otokrasi. (Çev: Oğuz Onaran). Ankara: Türk Siyasi İlimler Derneği Yayınları.
  24. Hayek, Friedrich A.von. (1999), Kölelik Yolu. (Çev:Turhan Feyzioğlu-Yıldıray Arsan). Ankara:
  25. Liberte Yay. Horkheimer, M. ve Adorno, W. T. (1996), Aydınlanmanın Diyalektiği Felsefi Fragmanlar-2, Kabalcı Yayınları, istanbul. İnsel, A. “Ilerleme ve Ikinci Modernlik”, Radikal, 29/09/1996.
  26. İnsel, Ahmet. (1993) İktisat İdeolojisinin Eleştirisi. İstanbul:
  27. Birikim Yayınları Kentel, F. “Tepeden inmeci “Çağdaşlığın” Teyakkuz Hali”, 04/10/2007
  28. Kolakowskı, Leszek. (1993), “Totalitarizm ve Yalan”, Sosyal-Siyasal Teori. (Çev: Aydın Yalç