KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies / 2017 / Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 2

Elites In Turkey: Murray Milner’s Political Sociology Versus The New Ulemate

Türkiye’nin Elitleri: Murray Milner’ın Siyaset Sosyolojisi ve Yeni Ulema

BARIŞ BÜYÜKOKUTAN
Sayfa
117–128
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

This shows that Milner’s framework should be developed further to better account for multiple and competing interests.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:This article features an extensive review of Murray Milner, Jr.’s Elites (2015).
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:After summarizing its argument, locating it in debates in political sociology, and highlighting why it matters, I apply the conceptual framework advanced in the book to Turkey.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:This shows that Milner’s framework should be developed further to better account for multiple and competing interests.
🔬Tür:Literatür & Derleme Çalışması
📍Kapsam:2015 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

This article features an extensive review of Murray Milner, Jr.’s Elites (2015). After summarizing its argument, locating it in debates in political sociology, and highlighting why it matters, I apply the conceptual framework advanced in the book to Turkey. I find that while Milner’s framework captures the Turkish case quite well, it cannot account for generous state support of some status elites. I offer a tentative solution to this puzzle by distinguishing between political elites’ short- and long-term interests. This shows that Milner’s framework should be developed further to better account for multiple and competing interests.

Abstract

Bu makale, Murray Milner, Jr.’ın Elites (2015) isimli kitabının geniş bir değerlendirmesini sunmaktadır. Milner’ın eserini özetleyip siyaset sosyolojisinde durduğu yeri tartıştıktan ve kitabın önemini açıkladıktan sonra, kitapta geliştirilen kavramsal çerçeveyi Türkiye örneğine uygulamaktadır. Milner’ın çerçevesi Türkiye örneğini oldukça başarıyla açıklasa da devletin bazı statü seçkinlerine verdiği cömert destek bu çerçeveye uymamaktadır. Makale, bu durumu siyasi seçkinlerin uzun dönemli ve kısa dönemli çıkarları arasında bir ayrım yaparak açıklamayı önermektedir. Sonuç olarak Milner’ın kavramsal çerçevesinde farklı ve yarışan çıkarların daha iyi kuramsallaştırılması çerçevenin geleceği için uygun olacaktır.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

BÜYÜKOKUTAN, B. (2017). Elites In Turkey: Murray Milner’s Political Sociology Versus The New Ulemate. Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies, Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 2, 117–128. https://ajindex.com/articles/142126

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (11)

  1. Wright, E.O. (1997). Class Counts: Comparative Studies in Class Analysis. Cambridge, U.K.: New York: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Weber, M. (1968). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. New York: Bedminster Press. ------, (2016). The Fall of the Turkish Model: How the Arab Uprisings Brought down Islamic Liberalism. London; New York: Verso. Tuğal, C. (2009). Passive Revolution: Absorbing the Islamic Challenge to Capitalism. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ------, (1985). “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime,” in C. Besteman (ed.) Violence: A Reader: 35-60. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Tilly, C. (1978). From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. ------, (2016). How Will Capitalism End? Essays on a Failing System. London: Verso. Szelenyi, I. (1982). “The Intelligentsia in the Class Structure of State-Socialist Societies,” American Journal of Sociology, 88: 287-326.
  3. Streeck, W. (2014). Buying Time: The Delayed Crisis of Democratic Capitalism. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Verso. Skocpol, T. (1979). States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Selçuk, O. (2016). “Strong Presidents and Weak Institutions: Populism in Turkey, Venezuela and Ecuador,” Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 16(4): 571-589.
  5. Sarfati, Y. (2017). “How Turkey’s Slide to Authoritarianism Defies Modernization Theory,” Turkish Studies, 18(3): 395-415.
  6. Runciman, W.G. (1989). A Treatise on Social Theory. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Parkin, F. (1979). Marxism and Class Theory: A Bourgeois Critique. London: Tavistock. Pareto, V. (1963). The Mind and Society: A Treatise on General Sociology. New York: Dover. Özdikmenli, I., and Ovalı, S. (2014). “A Success Story or a Flawed Example? The Anatomy of the Turkish Model for the Middle East,” New Perspectives on Turkey, 51: 5-33.
  8. Olson, M. (1971). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
  9. Milner, M. (2015). Elites: A General Model. Cambridge, UK; Malden, Mass.: Polity Press.
  10. Michels, R. (1915). Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. New York: Hearst’s International Library. McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., and Tilly, C. (2001). Dynamics of Contention. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Massey, D.S., and Denton, N.A. (1993). American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambri