Dergiler / Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 1

CONFORMITY VERSUS INFORMALITY: ON RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SOCIALISTS AND BUREAUCRATIC ELITE IN TURKEY

Sayfa
96–121
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)

The main aim of this study is to explore the relationship, interactions, and dilemmas regarding conformity versus illegality in line with the contradictive evolvement of relations between the socialists and bureaucratic elite in the Turkish political life.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Might the history of socialism in Turkey be read as the history of “ostracism” and “proscription” of the socialists from the political system?
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:On the other hand, might the socialists in Turkey be considered as a (one of the) outsider(s) or political (one of the) enemy/enemies?
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The main aim of this study is to explore the relationship, interactions, and dilemmas regarding conformity versus illegality in line with the contradictive evolvement of relations between the socialists and bureaucratic elite in the Turkish political life.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Turkish Politics · Conformity · Informality

Özet

Might the history of socialism in Turkey be read as the history of “ostracism” and “proscription” of the socialists from the political system? On the other hand, might the socialists in Turkey be considered as a (one of the) outsider(s) or political (one of the) enemy/enemies? This article wants to answer these questions and focus on the problem of how Turkish socialists affect the political system, while they are in mainly the outside of the system. The main argument of this article is that the socialists can be considered as an outsider/public enemy of Turkish political system by the bureaucratic elite, but social relations occurred in the non-political institutions of Turkish society have given opportunities to the socialists for affecting the political system. In other words, nonpolitical social institutions and daily social relations occurred in these institutions have been the only space for the socialists to be politically active and to illegally and informally affect the inside (formal institutions) of the political system. This is also one of the main reason for the endemic informality and/or illegality tradition in the Turkish left. The main aim of this study is to explore the relationship, interactions, and dilemmas regarding conformity versus illegality in line with the contradictive evolvement of relations between the socialists and bureaucratic elite in the Turkish political life.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

KAYNAR, M. K. (2019). CONFORMITY VERSUS INFORMALITY: ON RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SOCIALISTS AND BUREAUCRATIC ELITE IN TURKEY. Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 1, 96–121. https://ajindex.com/articles/314839

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (22)

  1. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL. (1989), Amnesty International Report 1988, London: Amnesty International Publications BENNINGTON, G. (1997), Politics of Friendship, a Discussion with Jacques Derrida, Centre for Modern French Thought, The University of Sussex, Access Date: 05.12.2018, http://hydra.humanities.uci.edu/derrida/pol+fr.html
  2. BORA, T. (2016), Türk Sağı: Siyasi Düşünce Tarihi Açısından Bir Çerçeve Denemesi, İ. Ö. Kerestecioğlu ve G. G. Öztan (Der.), Türk Sağı, Mitler, Fetişler, Düşman İmgeleri içinde (ss. 9-28), İstanbul:
  3. İletişim Yayınevi.
  4. BOTTOMORE, T. (1964),
  5. Elites and Society, New York: Basic Books Inc. BURAK, B. (2011), Turkish Political Culture and Civil Society: An Unsettling Coupling?, Alternatives Turkish Journal of International Relations, 10(1), 59-71.
  6. COOPER, M. (2002), The Legacy of Ataturk: Turkish Political Structures and Policy-making, International Affair, 78, 115-128.
  7. DEMIRKOL, M. (2013), From Ottoman to Republic Center-Periphery Analysis in Turkish Political Culture and Bureaucracy, International Anatolia Academic Online Journal, 1(2), 70-85.
  8. DERRIDA, J. (1974),
  9. Of Grammatology, Washington: John Hopkins University Press.
  10. DIZEREGA, G. (1991), Elites and Democratic Theory: Insights from the Self-Organizing Model, The Review of Politics, 53 (2), 340-372.
  11. ERDAL, H. (1983), Discussions in the CPT 1981-1982,
  12. Documents, London: Verso. FAMILY TREE OF THE TURKISH RADICAL LEFT. Access Date: 05.12.2018, https://www.broadleft.org/tr_left_part_hist_diag.pdf
  13. FEROZE, M. R. (1976), Islam and Secularism in Post-Kemalist Turkey, Islamabad: Islamic Research Institute. FREY, G. (1965),
  14. Turkish Political Elite, Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press.
  15. GEYIKDAĞI, M. Y. (1984),
  16. Political Parties in Turkey, The Role of Islam, New York: Prager Inc. HALE, W. M., WILLIAM, M. (1994),
  17. Turkish Politics and the Military, London: Routledge. HARRIS, G. S. (1967), The Origins of Communism in Turkey. Stanford: Hoover Institution on War, Revolution & Peace. HEPER, M. (1976), The Recalcitrance of the Turkish Public Bureaucracy to "Bourgeois Politics": A Multi-Factor Political Stratification Analysis, Middle East Journal. 30(4), 485-500.
  18. HEPER, M. (1985),
  19. The State Tradition in Turkey, Wallington, England: The Eothen Press.
  20. HEPER, M. (1994), Politics in the Third Turkish Republic, Boulder: Westview Press.
  21. HIGLEY, J., PAKULSKI J. (2012),
  22. Elite, Elitism and Elite Theory: Unending Confusion?, International Political Science Association, XXII World Congress, Madrid. Access Date: 05.12.2018,