Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Doğu’dan Batı’ya Kolektiviteler Üzerinden Birey-Devlet İlişkisi: Konfüçyan, Hegelyan ve Komüniteryan Siyaset Felsefelerinde Toplumsal Birey Anlayışı

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 4, 520 - 537, 20.10.2023
https://doi.org/10.33723/rs.1356929

Öz

Bu çalışma, birey-devlet ilişkisinin doğasını betimsel bir yöntem ve bütüncül bir bakış açısıyla analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bireyin toplumsallığına atfedilen önem hem Doğu hem de Batı siyaset felsefelerinde yer almaktadır. Bireyin devlet ve diğer toplumsal yapılar karşısındaki konumu içinde bulunulan dönem ve bağlamın hâkim felsefi anlayışlarına paralel bir şekilde gelişim göstermektedir. Klasik liberalizmin birey algısına yönelik eleştirilerde de gözlemlendiği şekliyle bireyin toplumsallığına yapılan vurgu Konfüçyanizm’de ve Hegel’in felsefi yaklaşımında da bulunmaktadır ve dolayısıyla tarihsel bir temele sahip doğrusal bir anlayışa işaret etmektedir. Özellikle 20. yüzyılın son çeyreğinden itibaren liberal komüniteryanların klasik liberalizmin birey anlayışını eleştirerek tartışmayı yeniden canlandırdıkları gözlemlenmektedir. Klasik liberalizmin toplumsal/kolektif bağlardan uzak, aşkın birey anlayışının aksine liberal komüniteryanlar toplumsal bağ ve yapıların önemine dikkat çekmektedir. Bireyin kolektif bağlarının önemini kabul eden bu çalışma, Konfüçyanizm, Hegelyan siyasal düşünce ve komüniteryanizmde bireyin kolektif yapılarla, özellikle de devletle ilişkisini incelemekte, ikili ilişkinin geçmişten günümüze devamlı eden bir tartışma konusu olduğunu savunmaktadır.

Kaynakça

  • Beiser, F. (2005). Hegel. London: Routledge.
  • Bell, D. A. (1996). Democracy in Confucian societies: The challenge of justification. In D. A. Bell, D. Brown, K. Jayasuriya & D. M. Jones (Eds.) Towards illiberal democracy in Pacific Asia (pp.17-40). New York: MacMillan.
  • Bell D. A. & Hahm, Chaibong. (2003). Confucianism for the modern world. Cambridge University Press.
  • Benhabib, S. (1992). Situating the self: Gender, community and postmodernism in contemporary ethics. Routledge.
  • Buchanan, A. E. (1989). Assessing the communitarian critique of liberalism. Ethics 99(4), 852-882.
  • Confucius. (1999). The analects of Confucius: A philosophical translation. New York: Ballantine Books.
  • Dagger, R. (2004). Communitarianism and republicanism. In G. F. Gaus & C. Kukathas (Eds.) Handbook of Political Theory (pp.167-179). London: Sage Publications.
  • Gutmann, A. (1985). Communitarian critics of liberalism. Philosophy & Public Affairs 14 (3), 308-322.
  • Hegel, G.W.F. (1975). Lectures on the philosophy of world history (D. Forbes, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hegel, G.W.F. (1979). Phenomenology of spirit. (A.V. Miller, Trans.). Oxford university Press.
  • Hegel, G.W.F. (2001). Philosophy of right. (S.W Dyde, Trans.). Batoche Books Kitchener.
  • Hu, W. (2007). On Confucian communitarianism. Frontiers of Philosophy of China, 2 (4), 475-487.
  • Keane, J. (1988). Civil society and the state: New European perspectives. Verso Books.
  • MacIntyre, A. (1984). The virtues, the unity of a human life and the concept of tradition, In Michael J. S. (Eds.), Liberalism and its critics (pp.125-149). New York University Press.
  • MacIntyre, A. (2007). After virtue: A study in moral theory. (3rd ed.). University of Notre Dame Press.
  • Pye, L. W. (1991). The state and the individual: An overview interpretation. The China Quarterly (127), 443-466.
  • Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge.
  • Sandel, M. J. (1998). Liberalism and the limits of justice. (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Shin, D. C. (2012). Confucianism and democratization. Cambridge University Press.
  • Taylor, C. (1979). Hegel and modern society. Cambridge University Press.
  • Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Cambridge University Press.
  • Tu W. (1996). Confucian traditions in East Asian modernity. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 50, 12–39.
  • Walzer, M. (1990). The communitarian critique of liberalism. Political Theory. 18(1), 6-23.
  • Wood, A. W. (1990). Hegel’s ethical thought. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

INDIVIDUAL-STATE RELATIONSHIP FROM EAST TO WEST THROUGH COLLECTIVITIES: THE SOCIAL INDIVIDUAL IN CONFUCIAN, HEGELIAN, AND COMMUNITARIAN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHIES

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 4, 520 - 537, 20.10.2023
https://doi.org/10.33723/rs.1356929

Öz

This study aims to analyze the nature of the individual-state relationship from a descriptive approach and a holistic perspective. The importance attributed to the sociality of the individual is embedded in both Eastern and Western political philosophies. The position of the individual vis-à-vis the state and other social structures depends on the philosophical understanding of the period and context. The emphasis on the sociality of the individual, which is put forward in the critique of classical liberalism’s perception of the individual is also observed in Confucian ethics and Hegel’s philosophical approach and thus implies a linear understanding. Especially since the last quarter of the 20th century, liberal communitarians have revived the debate by criticizing classical liberal conception of the individual. In contrast to classical liberalism’s understanding of transcendental individual who is free from social/collective features, liberal communitarians highlight the significance of social ties and structures. Recognizing the importance of the individual’s collective ties, this study examines the individual’s relationship with collective structures, especially the state, in Confucianism, Hegelian political thought, and communitarianism and argues that the relationship between the two has been a subject of constant debate from past to present.

Kaynakça

  • Beiser, F. (2005). Hegel. London: Routledge.
  • Bell, D. A. (1996). Democracy in Confucian societies: The challenge of justification. In D. A. Bell, D. Brown, K. Jayasuriya & D. M. Jones (Eds.) Towards illiberal democracy in Pacific Asia (pp.17-40). New York: MacMillan.
  • Bell D. A. & Hahm, Chaibong. (2003). Confucianism for the modern world. Cambridge University Press.
  • Benhabib, S. (1992). Situating the self: Gender, community and postmodernism in contemporary ethics. Routledge.
  • Buchanan, A. E. (1989). Assessing the communitarian critique of liberalism. Ethics 99(4), 852-882.
  • Confucius. (1999). The analects of Confucius: A philosophical translation. New York: Ballantine Books.
  • Dagger, R. (2004). Communitarianism and republicanism. In G. F. Gaus & C. Kukathas (Eds.) Handbook of Political Theory (pp.167-179). London: Sage Publications.
  • Gutmann, A. (1985). Communitarian critics of liberalism. Philosophy & Public Affairs 14 (3), 308-322.
  • Hegel, G.W.F. (1975). Lectures on the philosophy of world history (D. Forbes, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hegel, G.W.F. (1979). Phenomenology of spirit. (A.V. Miller, Trans.). Oxford university Press.
  • Hegel, G.W.F. (2001). Philosophy of right. (S.W Dyde, Trans.). Batoche Books Kitchener.
  • Hu, W. (2007). On Confucian communitarianism. Frontiers of Philosophy of China, 2 (4), 475-487.
  • Keane, J. (1988). Civil society and the state: New European perspectives. Verso Books.
  • MacIntyre, A. (1984). The virtues, the unity of a human life and the concept of tradition, In Michael J. S. (Eds.), Liberalism and its critics (pp.125-149). New York University Press.
  • MacIntyre, A. (2007). After virtue: A study in moral theory. (3rd ed.). University of Notre Dame Press.
  • Pye, L. W. (1991). The state and the individual: An overview interpretation. The China Quarterly (127), 443-466.
  • Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge.
  • Sandel, M. J. (1998). Liberalism and the limits of justice. (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Shin, D. C. (2012). Confucianism and democratization. Cambridge University Press.
  • Taylor, C. (1979). Hegel and modern society. Cambridge University Press.
  • Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Cambridge University Press.
  • Tu W. (1996). Confucian traditions in East Asian modernity. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 50, 12–39.
  • Walzer, M. (1990). The communitarian critique of liberalism. Political Theory. 18(1), 6-23.
  • Wood, A. W. (1990). Hegel’s ethical thought. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Toplam 24 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Politika ve Yönetim (Diğer)
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Nurcan Ceyhan 0000-0002-9087-6780

Erken Görünüm Tarihi 19 Ekim 2023
Yayımlanma Tarihi 20 Ekim 2023
Gönderilme Tarihi 7 Eylül 2023
Kabul Tarihi 7 Ekim 2023
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2023 Cilt: 6 Sayı: 4

Kaynak Göster

APA Ceyhan, N. (2023). INDIVIDUAL-STATE RELATIONSHIP FROM EAST TO WEST THROUGH COLLECTIVITIES: THE SOCIAL INDIVIDUAL IN CONFUCIAN, HEGELIAN, AND COMMUNITARIAN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHIES. R&S - Research Studies Anatolia Journal, 6(4), 520-537. https://doi.org/10.33723/rs.1356929
R&S - Research Studies Anatolia Journal 

https://dergipark.org.tr/rs