Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Criticism of Hegemonic Approaches and Power Interpretation

Year 2020, Volume: 4 Issue: 2, 166 - 189, 29.12.2020

Elif Gürdal

https://doi.org/10.38122/ased.768582
Cited By: 1

Abstract

In the international relations literature, the concept of hegemony is examined in terms of stability and world order through different approaches after the cold war. However, among these analyzes, different tools were prioritized, and the understanding of order and power was evaluated from different perspectives according to each theory. There are four views of hegemony that directly analyze the concept. In this study, it has been tried to evaluate how sufficient each concept is in analyzing the understanding of hegemony in the current international relations structure and from which aspects the criticisms they receive. As a comparative conceptual study, it aimed to find the reasons for the difficulties in interpreting the international system from a single theory.

Keywords

Hegemony power critical view comparative analysis

References

  • Alonso, A. M. (1994). The politics of space, time and substance: state formation, nationalism, and ethnicity, Annual Review, Anthropol, (23), 379-405.
  • Amnesty international (UAÖ) (2020). https://www.amnesty.org/en/who-we-are/.
  • Anderson, P. (1998) Gramsci: hegemonya doğu/batı sorunu ve stratejisi (T. Günersel çev.)İstanbul: Alan Yayınları.
  • Angell, N. (1911). The great illusion: study of relations of military power in nations to their economic and social advantage. Toronto: Mc Lelland and goodchild Publishers.
  • Baldwin, R. E. (1993). Adapting the gatt to a more regionalized world: a political economy perspective. K. Anderson and R. Blackhurst (Ed.), Regional ıntegration and the global trading system, New York: St. Martin’s Press.
  • Barschdorff, P. (2001). Facilitating transatlantic cooperation after the cold war: an acquis atlantique. Verlag Münster: LIT.
  • Bieler, A. and A. D. (2004). A critical theory route to hegemony: world order and historical change: neo-Gramscian perspectives in international relations. Capital and Class, Sayı: 28(1), (85-113).
  • Bob Jessop, B. (2005). Hegemonya, post-fordizm ve küreselleşme ekseninde kapitalist devlet. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları
  • Byers, M. and Nolte, G. (Ed.) (2003). United States hegemony and the foundations of ınternational law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Carr, E. H. (1946). The twenty years crisis, 1919-1939: an introduction to the study of ınternational relations (2. Baskı) Londra: MacMillan & Co. Ltd.
  • Copeland, D. C. (2012). Realist perspective: realism and neorealism in study of regional conflict. T. V. Paul (Ed.), International Relations Theory and Regional Transformation içinde (50). Cambridge University Press.
  • Cox, R. W. (1983). Gramsci, hegemony and international relationas: an essay in method. Millennium - Journal of International Studies, (12), 162-175.
  • Cox, R. W. (1987). Production, power and world order: social forces in the making of history. Newyork: Coumbia University Press.
  • Cox, R. W. (1993). Gramsci, hegemony and international relations: An essay in method. Stephen Gill (Ed.), Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations içinde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Çelik, Ü. (2013). Soğuk Savaş’tan Libya operasyonu’na NATO - Avrupa Birliği ilişkileri, History Studies, 5 (5), 63-92.
  • Eichengreen, B. (1987). Hegemonic Stability theories of the international monetary system, Cambridge: National Bureau Of Economic Research.
  • Eralp, A. (2005). Hegemonya devlet ve ötesi: uluslararası ilişkilerde temel kavramlar. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
  • European Union Committee Further Enlargement Report. (2006). The Further Enlargement of the EU: threat or opportunity? Evidence given to the House of Lords EU Select Committe, 53rd Report of Session 2005–06, London
  • Foreign Affairs National Archives (2017). Records of the United States Information Agency (RG 306), https://www.archives.gov/research/foreign-policy/related-records/rg-306.
  • Frank, A. G. and Gills, B. K. (1993). The 5000- year world system: an interdisciplinary ıntroduction, A. G. Frank and B. K. Gills (Ed.), The World System, Five Hundred Years or Five Thousand? İçinde (3-6). NewYork and London: Routledge.
  • Gilpin, R. (1988). The theory of hegemonic war: the origin and prevention of major wars. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History/ The MIT Press, 18( 4 (Spring), 591-613.
  • Gilpin, R. (2001). Global political economy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  • Gilpin, R. (2007). Küreselleşme, medeniyetler ve dünya düzeni. (G.İ. Çev.) Kara, Divan Disiplinlerarası Çalışmalar Dergisi, ( 23)21-37.
  • Gramsci, A. (1989). Hapishane defterleri. (K. Somer, Çev.) İstanbul: Onur Yayınları, İstanbul.
  • Gramsci, A. (1997). Hapishane defterleri. (A. Cemgil, Çev.) İstanbul: Belge Yayınları.
  • Griffiths, M. (2011). Fifty key thinkers in ınternational relations (uluslararası ilişkilerde temel düşünürler ve teoriler). ( Cesran, Çev.)Ankara: Nobel Yayınevi.
  • Guzzini, S. (2006). “From (alleged) unipolarity to the decline of multilateralism? A power-theoretical critique. E. Newman, R. Thakur ve J. Tirman (Ed.), multilateralism under challenge? power, International order, and Structural Change içinde 125 India: United Nations University Press.
  • Hayden, C. (2012). The rhetoric of soft power: public diplomacy in global contexts. New York: Lexington Books.
  • Ikenberry, G. J. (2001). After victory: institutions, strategic restraint, and the rebuilding of order after major wars. Princeton ve Oxford: Princeton University Press.
  • Jain, R. K. (1996). Hierarchy, hegemony and dominance: politics of ethnicity in Uttar Pradesh, Economic and Political Weekly, 31 (4) , 215-223
  • Johnson, T. and Heiss, A. (2018). Liberal institutionalism. (İkinci Baskı). T. G. Weiss and R. Wilkinson (Ed.), International Organization and Global Governance. London: Routledge.
  • Kennedy, P. M. (2001) Büyük Güçlerin yükseliş ve çöküşleri: 16. Yüzyıldan günümüze ekonomik değişim ve askeri çatışmalar (B. Karanakçı, Çev.). İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası.
  • Keohane, R. and Nye, J. (1987). Power and interdependence. International Organization/ The MIT Press 41( 4), Güz, 725-753.
  • Keohane, R. (1984). After hegemony: cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Keohane, R. (1988). International institutions: two approaches. International Studies Quarterly, 32(4), 382-393.
  • Kindleberger, C. (1973). The World in depression: 1929-39 Chapter 14. Berkely: University of California Press.
  • Kindleberger, C. P. (1986). International public goods without ınternational government, The American Economic Review, 76(1), 1-13.
  • Köksoy, E. (2014). Kamu diplomasisi ve halkla ilişkiler ilişkisi: Kuramsal bir değerlendirme. Marmara İletişim Dergisi / Marmara Journal of Communication , 22 (211-231) .
  • Krasner, S. D. (1982). Structural causes and regime consequences: regimes as ıntervening variables. International Organization, 36(2),185–205.
  • Krasner, S. D. (1983). Internatioal regimes. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.2
  • Lentner, H. H. (2006). Hegemony and power in international politicsi M. Haugaard, H. H. Lentner (Ed.), Hegemony and power: consensus and coercion in contemporary politics içinde (p.90). Oxford: Lexington Books.
  • Louati, C. (2011). Military Intervention In Libya: Where Is ESDP? http://www.nouvelle-europe.eu/en/military-intervention-libya-where-esdp.
  • Melissen, J. (2005). The new public diplomacy: between theory and practice. J. Melissen (Ed. ), The public diplomacy: soft power in ınternational relations içinde (3-4). Newyork: Palgrave MacMillan.
  • Modelski, G. (2005). Küresel politikanın uzun döngüsü ve ulus-devlet. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 2 ( 7) (Güz), 3-30.
  • Morton, A. D. (2011). Gramsci’yi çözümlemek: küresel politik iktisatta hegemonya ve pasif devri. ( B. Baysal, Çev.) İstanbul: Kalkedeon Yayınları.
  • Mundell, R. M. (1989). International Monetary Options. Cato Journal, 3(1) (spring) 189.
  • Norrlof, C. (2010). America’s global advantage: us hegemony and ınternational cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Nye, J. (2016). Amerikan yüzyılı bitti mi? İstanbul: Röle akademik yayıncılık.
  • Nye, J. S. (1990). Soft power, Foreign Policy, (Nu. 80), Güz, 153-171.
  • Nye, J. S. (2002). The Paradox of American power: Why the world's only superpower can't go ıt alone. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Nye, J. S. (2004). The decline of America’s soft power - Why Washington should worry. Foreign Affairs,16/83.
  • Nye, J. S. (2005). Yumuşak Güç. ( R. İ. Aydın Çev.). Ankara: Elips Kitap.
  • Nye, J. S. (2009). Get smart: combing hard and soft power. Foreign Affairs, 88( 4) (July/August), 160-163.
  • Nye, J. S. (2015). Amerikan yüzyılı bitt mi? (B.Beşgül Çev.). İstanbul: Uluslararası İlişkiler Kütüphanesi.
  • Nye, J. S. and Keohane, R. (1971). Transnational relations and world politics. International Organization, 25(3), Yaz, 329-349.
  • Olson, M. (1986). A theory of the incentives facing political organizations: neo-corporatism and the hegemonic state. International Political Science Review, (7), 165-89.
  • Potyemkin, V., Baruşin, S., Efimov, A., Mintz, İ. ve Kosminski, E. (2002) vd., Uluslararası ilişkiler tarihi: diplomasi tarihi Cilt I (2. Basım). ( A. Tokatlı, Çev.) İstanbul: Evrensel Basım Yayın.
  • Power, P. (1981). Amnesty international: The human rights story. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
  • Rhodes, P.J. (2019). Antik Yunan’ın kısa tarihi (A short history of the Ancient Greece.). ( C. Atay, Çev.) İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
  • Robinson, I. W. (1998). Promoting polyarchy: globalization US intervention and hegemony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Robinson, J. (1983). Reification and Hegemony: The Politics Of Culture in The Writings of Georg Lukács and Antonio Gramsci 1918-1938, McClill University, Department of History, (A thesis submitted to the Facu1ty of Graduate for the degree of the Doctor of Philosoph). Montréal.
  • Ruggie, J. G. (1982). International regimes, transactions, and change: embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order, International Organization, 36( 2), (Spring), 379-415.
  • Ruggie, J. G. (1975). Intemationail responses to technology: concepts and trends. International Organization, (29) (Summer), 559.
  • Salmon, T. C. (2004). United in its diversity(or disunited in adversity) : that is the question for the EU and THEESDP, Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 5 ( 3), 447-468.
  • Sinclair, T.J. ( 1996). Beyond international relations theory: Robert Cox and appreaches to world order,. R.W. Cox ve Timothy J. Sinclair (Ed.) Approaches to the world order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
  • Snidal, D. (1985). The limits of stability theory, International Organization, 39 (4), Autumn, 581.
  • Stephan H. and Simmons, B. A. (1987). Theories of international regimes. International organization 41( 3), 491-517.
  • Türk Dil Kurumu (2019) Hegemonya, http://www.tdk.gov.tr/index.php?option=com gts&kelime=HEGEMONYA
  • Uça Güneş, E. P. (2016). Toplumsal değişim, teknoloji ve eğitim ilişkisinde sosyal ağların yeri, AU (Anadolu Üniversitesi) Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi (AUAd), 2 ( 2), 191‐206 .
  • Wallerstein, I. (1995). After liberalism, New York: The New Press.
  • Wallerstein, I. (1997). The Capitalist world-economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wallerstein, I. (1999). The End of the world as we know ıt: social science for the twenty-first century, Minneapolis London: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Wallerstein, I. (2003). Historical capitalizm with capitalist civilization, New York: Verso..
  • Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-systems analysis: An introduction, the USA: Duke University Press.
  • Wallerstein, I. (2011). The Modern world-system I, capitalist agriculture and the origins of the european world- economy in the sixteenth century. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Weber, M. (1978): Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology (second vol). G. Roth and C. Wittich (Ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hegemonik Yaklaşımların Eleştirisi ve Güç Yorumu

Year 2020, Volume: 4 Issue: 2, 166 - 189, 29.12.2020

Elif Gürdal

https://doi.org/10.38122/ased.768582
Cited By: 1

Abstract

Uluslararası ilişkiler literatüründe hegemonya kavramı, Soğuk Savaştan sonra farklı yaklaşımlar üzerinden istikrar ve dünya düzeni açısından incelenmiştir. Ancak bu analizler içerisinde farklı araçlar öncelikli olmuş ve düzen ile güç anlayışı her bir kurama göre farklı açılardan değerlendirilmiştir. Hegemonya kavramını doğrudan analiz eden dört hegemonya görüşü vardır. Bu çalışmada, her bir görüşün mevcut uluslararası ilişkiler yapısının hegemonya anlayışını analiz etmede ne derecede yeterli olduğu ve aldıkları eleştirilerin hangi açılardan geldiği değerlendirilmeye çalışılmıştır. Karşılaştırmalı bir kavramsal çalışma olarak, uluslararası sistemin tek bir kuram üzerinden yorumlanamamasındaki zorlukların sebeplerini irdelemek amaçlanmıştır.

Keywords

hegemonya güç karşılaştırmalı analiz

References

  • Alonso, A. M. (1994). The politics of space, time and substance: state formation, nationalism, and ethnicity, Annual Review, Anthropol, (23), 379-405.
  • Amnesty international (UAÖ) (2020). https://www.amnesty.org/en/who-we-are/.
  • Anderson, P. (1998) Gramsci: hegemonya doğu/batı sorunu ve stratejisi (T. Günersel çev.)İstanbul: Alan Yayınları.
  • Angell, N. (1911). The great illusion: study of relations of military power in nations to their economic and social advantage. Toronto: Mc Lelland and goodchild Publishers.
  • Baldwin, R. E. (1993). Adapting the gatt to a more regionalized world: a political economy perspective. K. Anderson and R. Blackhurst (Ed.), Regional ıntegration and the global trading system, New York: St. Martin’s Press.
  • Barschdorff, P. (2001). Facilitating transatlantic cooperation after the cold war: an acquis atlantique. Verlag Münster: LIT.
  • Bieler, A. and A. D. (2004). A critical theory route to hegemony: world order and historical change: neo-Gramscian perspectives in international relations. Capital and Class, Sayı: 28(1), (85-113).
  • Bob Jessop, B. (2005). Hegemonya, post-fordizm ve küreselleşme ekseninde kapitalist devlet. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları
  • Byers, M. and Nolte, G. (Ed.) (2003). United States hegemony and the foundations of ınternational law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Carr, E. H. (1946). The twenty years crisis, 1919-1939: an introduction to the study of ınternational relations (2. Baskı) Londra: MacMillan & Co. Ltd.
  • Copeland, D. C. (2012). Realist perspective: realism and neorealism in study of regional conflict. T. V. Paul (Ed.), International Relations Theory and Regional Transformation içinde (50). Cambridge University Press.
  • Cox, R. W. (1983). Gramsci, hegemony and international relationas: an essay in method. Millennium - Journal of International Studies, (12), 162-175.
  • Cox, R. W. (1987). Production, power and world order: social forces in the making of history. Newyork: Coumbia University Press.
  • Cox, R. W. (1993). Gramsci, hegemony and international relations: An essay in method. Stephen Gill (Ed.), Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations içinde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Çelik, Ü. (2013). Soğuk Savaş’tan Libya operasyonu’na NATO - Avrupa Birliği ilişkileri, History Studies, 5 (5), 63-92.
  • Eichengreen, B. (1987). Hegemonic Stability theories of the international monetary system, Cambridge: National Bureau Of Economic Research.
  • Eralp, A. (2005). Hegemonya devlet ve ötesi: uluslararası ilişkilerde temel kavramlar. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
  • European Union Committee Further Enlargement Report. (2006). The Further Enlargement of the EU: threat or opportunity? Evidence given to the House of Lords EU Select Committe, 53rd Report of Session 2005–06, London
  • Foreign Affairs National Archives (2017). Records of the United States Information Agency (RG 306), https://www.archives.gov/research/foreign-policy/related-records/rg-306.
  • Frank, A. G. and Gills, B. K. (1993). The 5000- year world system: an interdisciplinary ıntroduction, A. G. Frank and B. K. Gills (Ed.), The World System, Five Hundred Years or Five Thousand? İçinde (3-6). NewYork and London: Routledge.
  • Gilpin, R. (1988). The theory of hegemonic war: the origin and prevention of major wars. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History/ The MIT Press, 18( 4 (Spring), 591-613.
  • Gilpin, R. (2001). Global political economy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  • Gilpin, R. (2007). Küreselleşme, medeniyetler ve dünya düzeni. (G.İ. Çev.) Kara, Divan Disiplinlerarası Çalışmalar Dergisi, ( 23)21-37.
  • Gramsci, A. (1989). Hapishane defterleri. (K. Somer, Çev.) İstanbul: Onur Yayınları, İstanbul.
  • Gramsci, A. (1997). Hapishane defterleri. (A. Cemgil, Çev.) İstanbul: Belge Yayınları.
  • Griffiths, M. (2011). Fifty key thinkers in ınternational relations (uluslararası ilişkilerde temel düşünürler ve teoriler). ( Cesran, Çev.)Ankara: Nobel Yayınevi.
  • Guzzini, S. (2006). “From (alleged) unipolarity to the decline of multilateralism? A power-theoretical critique. E. Newman, R. Thakur ve J. Tirman (Ed.), multilateralism under challenge? power, International order, and Structural Change içinde 125 India: United Nations University Press.
  • Hayden, C. (2012). The rhetoric of soft power: public diplomacy in global contexts. New York: Lexington Books.
  • Ikenberry, G. J. (2001). After victory: institutions, strategic restraint, and the rebuilding of order after major wars. Princeton ve Oxford: Princeton University Press.
  • Jain, R. K. (1996). Hierarchy, hegemony and dominance: politics of ethnicity in Uttar Pradesh, Economic and Political Weekly, 31 (4) , 215-223
  • Johnson, T. and Heiss, A. (2018). Liberal institutionalism. (İkinci Baskı). T. G. Weiss and R. Wilkinson (Ed.), International Organization and Global Governance. London: Routledge.
  • Kennedy, P. M. (2001) Büyük Güçlerin yükseliş ve çöküşleri: 16. Yüzyıldan günümüze ekonomik değişim ve askeri çatışmalar (B. Karanakçı, Çev.). İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası.
  • Keohane, R. and Nye, J. (1987). Power and interdependence. International Organization/ The MIT Press 41( 4), Güz, 725-753.
  • Keohane, R. (1984). After hegemony: cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Keohane, R. (1988). International institutions: two approaches. International Studies Quarterly, 32(4), 382-393.
  • Kindleberger, C. (1973). The World in depression: 1929-39 Chapter 14. Berkely: University of California Press.
  • Kindleberger, C. P. (1986). International public goods without ınternational government, The American Economic Review, 76(1), 1-13.
  • Köksoy, E. (2014). Kamu diplomasisi ve halkla ilişkiler ilişkisi: Kuramsal bir değerlendirme. Marmara İletişim Dergisi / Marmara Journal of Communication , 22 (211-231) .
  • Krasner, S. D. (1982). Structural causes and regime consequences: regimes as ıntervening variables. International Organization, 36(2),185–205.
  • Krasner, S. D. (1983). Internatioal regimes. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.2
  • Lentner, H. H. (2006). Hegemony and power in international politicsi M. Haugaard, H. H. Lentner (Ed.), Hegemony and power: consensus and coercion in contemporary politics içinde (p.90). Oxford: Lexington Books.
  • Louati, C. (2011). Military Intervention In Libya: Where Is ESDP? http://www.nouvelle-europe.eu/en/military-intervention-libya-where-esdp.
  • Melissen, J. (2005). The new public diplomacy: between theory and practice. J. Melissen (Ed. ), The public diplomacy: soft power in ınternational relations içinde (3-4). Newyork: Palgrave MacMillan.
  • Modelski, G. (2005). Küresel politikanın uzun döngüsü ve ulus-devlet. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 2 ( 7) (Güz), 3-30.
  • Morton, A. D. (2011). Gramsci’yi çözümlemek: küresel politik iktisatta hegemonya ve pasif devri. ( B. Baysal, Çev.) İstanbul: Kalkedeon Yayınları.
  • Mundell, R. M. (1989). International Monetary Options. Cato Journal, 3(1) (spring) 189.
  • Norrlof, C. (2010). America’s global advantage: us hegemony and ınternational cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Nye, J. (2016). Amerikan yüzyılı bitti mi? İstanbul: Röle akademik yayıncılık.
  • Nye, J. S. (1990). Soft power, Foreign Policy, (Nu. 80), Güz, 153-171.
  • Nye, J. S. (2002). The Paradox of American power: Why the world's only superpower can't go ıt alone. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Nye, J. S. (2004). The decline of America’s soft power - Why Washington should worry. Foreign Affairs,16/83.
  • Nye, J. S. (2005). Yumuşak Güç. ( R. İ. Aydın Çev.). Ankara: Elips Kitap.
  • Nye, J. S. (2009). Get smart: combing hard and soft power. Foreign Affairs, 88( 4) (July/August), 160-163.
  • Nye, J. S. (2015). Amerikan yüzyılı bitt mi? (B.Beşgül Çev.). İstanbul: Uluslararası İlişkiler Kütüphanesi.
  • Nye, J. S. and Keohane, R. (1971). Transnational relations and world politics. International Organization, 25(3), Yaz, 329-349.
  • Olson, M. (1986). A theory of the incentives facing political organizations: neo-corporatism and the hegemonic state. International Political Science Review, (7), 165-89.
  • Potyemkin, V., Baruşin, S., Efimov, A., Mintz, İ. ve Kosminski, E. (2002) vd., Uluslararası ilişkiler tarihi: diplomasi tarihi Cilt I (2. Basım). ( A. Tokatlı, Çev.) İstanbul: Evrensel Basım Yayın.
  • Power, P. (1981). Amnesty international: The human rights story. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
  • Rhodes, P.J. (2019). Antik Yunan’ın kısa tarihi (A short history of the Ancient Greece.). ( C. Atay, Çev.) İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
  • Robinson, I. W. (1998). Promoting polyarchy: globalization US intervention and hegemony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Robinson, J. (1983). Reification and Hegemony: The Politics Of Culture in The Writings of Georg Lukács and Antonio Gramsci 1918-1938, McClill University, Department of History, (A thesis submitted to the Facu1ty of Graduate for the degree of the Doctor of Philosoph). Montréal.
  • Ruggie, J. G. (1982). International regimes, transactions, and change: embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order, International Organization, 36( 2), (Spring), 379-415.
  • Ruggie, J. G. (1975). Intemationail responses to technology: concepts and trends. International Organization, (29) (Summer), 559.
  • Salmon, T. C. (2004). United in its diversity(or disunited in adversity) : that is the question for the EU and THEESDP, Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 5 ( 3), 447-468.
  • Sinclair, T.J. ( 1996). Beyond international relations theory: Robert Cox and appreaches to world order,. R.W. Cox ve Timothy J. Sinclair (Ed.) Approaches to the world order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
  • Snidal, D. (1985). The limits of stability theory, International Organization, 39 (4), Autumn, 581.
  • Stephan H. and Simmons, B. A. (1987). Theories of international regimes. International organization 41( 3), 491-517.
  • Türk Dil Kurumu (2019) Hegemonya, http://www.tdk.gov.tr/index.php?option=com gts&kelime=HEGEMONYA
  • Uça Güneş, E. P. (2016). Toplumsal değişim, teknoloji ve eğitim ilişkisinde sosyal ağların yeri, AU (Anadolu Üniversitesi) Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi (AUAd), 2 ( 2), 191‐206 .
  • Wallerstein, I. (1995). After liberalism, New York: The New Press.
  • Wallerstein, I. (1997). The Capitalist world-economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wallerstein, I. (1999). The End of the world as we know ıt: social science for the twenty-first century, Minneapolis London: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Wallerstein, I. (2003). Historical capitalizm with capitalist civilization, New York: Verso..
  • Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-systems analysis: An introduction, the USA: Duke University Press.
  • Wallerstein, I. (2011). The Modern world-system I, capitalist agriculture and the origins of the european world- economy in the sixteenth century. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Weber, M. (1978): Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology (second vol). G. Roth and C. Wittich (Ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
There are 76 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Elif Gürdal 0000-0001-5110-6524

Publication Date December 29, 2020
Acceptance Date December 25, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2020Volume: 4 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Gürdal, E. (2020). Hegemonik Yaklaşımların Eleştirisi ve Güç Yorumu. Aksaray Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4(2), 166-189. https://doi.org/10.38122/ased.768582
AMA Gürdal E. Hegemonik Yaklaşımların Eleştirisi ve Güç Yorumu. ASED. December 2020;4(2):166-189. doi:10.38122/ased.768582
Chicago Gürdal, Elif. “Hegemonik Yaklaşımların Eleştirisi Ve Güç Yorumu”. Aksaray Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 4, no. 2 (December 2020): 166-89. https://doi.org/10.38122/ased.768582.
EndNote Gürdal E (December 1, 2020) Hegemonik Yaklaşımların Eleştirisi ve Güç Yorumu. Aksaray Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 4 2 166–189.
IEEE E. Gürdal, “Hegemonik Yaklaşımların Eleştirisi ve Güç Yorumu”, ASED, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 166–189, 2020, doi: 10.38122/ased.768582.
ISNAD Gürdal, Elif. “Hegemonik Yaklaşımların Eleştirisi Ve Güç Yorumu”. Aksaray Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 4/2 (December 2020), 166-189. https://doi.org/10.38122/ased.768582.
JAMA Gürdal E. Hegemonik Yaklaşımların Eleştirisi ve Güç Yorumu. ASED. 2020;4:166–189.
MLA Gürdal, Elif. “Hegemonik Yaklaşımların Eleştirisi Ve Güç Yorumu”. Aksaray Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, vol. 4, no. 2, 2020, pp. 166-89, doi:10.38122/ased.768582.
Vancouver Gürdal E. Hegemonik Yaklaşımların Eleştirisi ve Güç Yorumu. ASED. 2020;4(2):166-89.

Cited By

Ekonomi Güvenliği Üzerine Ekonomi - Politik Bir Çözümleme
Maliye Finans Yazıları
https://doi.org/10.33203/mfy.1079849
 Download Cover Image