Huseyin Sevim

Bu makale Pierre Bourdieu’nun Uluslararası İlişkiler kuramlarına etkisini değerlendiren çalışmaların hala çok yetersiz olduğu düşüncesinden hareket ederek, Bourdieu’nun geliştirdiği düşünce ve kavramlara odaklanmakta ve onun Uluslararası İlişkiler disiplinine ne gibi katkılar
getirebileceğini tartışmaktadır. Bunun için de önce Bourdieu’cü analizin epistemolojik ve ontolojik sorunları nasıl değerlendirdiğini tartıştıktan sonra, onun başlıca düşünce ve kavramlarından hareket ederek, bunları Uluslararası İlişkiler kuramlarına uyarlamayı hedeflemektedir. Bu makalenin temel tezi Ululararası İlişkiler disiplini içerisindeki meta-teorik anlamdaki diyalog eksikliğinin Bourdieu’cü perspektifle bir nebze olsun aşılabileceğidir. Diğer bir ifadeyle, Ululararası İlişkiler disiplinindeki paradigmalar arasındaki bütünleyiciliğin mümkün olabileceği ve Bourdieu’nün geliştirdiği kavramların ana akım kuramların yetersizliklerini ve kör noktalarını bir nebze olsun azaltabileceğini iddia edilmektedir.

It seems that, within the discipline of international relations, some more meticulous conceptual work needs to be carried out, because, in this period of macro-transition, global problems have moved more and more to the centre of our concerns. If we have decided to build a more meticulous conceptual framework around globalization, it is mainly in order to precisely define the concepts we will be using in this
text and to dissipate misunderstandings about these concepts. Globalization, indeed, should not be reduced to its economic dimension but should be understood only as the integration of nation-states heading towards the establishment of a global society.

As James N. Rosenau says, "'globalization' is not the equivalent of 'globalism', which refers to individuals' roles and collective acts. Furthermore, globalization is neither a synonym of 'universalism', which aims at the whole set of values such as religion or science. And, this phenomenon should also be distinguished from the concept of complex interdependency. " Thus, this phenomenon shouldn't be imprisoned in a monolithic dimension. It is true that globalization has several sub-dimensions. That's why, when one studies globalisation, one should only work on the subdimensions.

Then one should focus on each of these, assuming that they all interact with each other and that this synergy intensifies them. However, this article underlines that globalization that has emerged from each sub-dimension would neither have appeared simultaneously, nor progressed at the same pace. Furthermore, this article underlines that globalization should not be studied as a phenomenon belonging to only one area. Indeed this object of research is located at the centre of various fields, such as neo-classicist economics, postmodernist theory, the realist approach to international relations and Marxism.

This article will also attempt to define the contrast between the
Westphalian and Post Westphalian eras. Next, based upon this differentiation, in accordance with the nature of the current international system, we will be able to better define the characteristics of the state, as an actor in the Post Westphalian era. This way, it will be possible to see what kind of systemic structure appears in that era. Lastly, it will enable us to share our knowledge of the concept of the Post-Westphalian state. In the last part, we will study the impact of the independent variable (globalization) on the dependent variable (the nation-state).

Within this framework, the link between these variables will enable us to show different paradigms. Here, we will notice that some neo-liberal writers argue that in a period of macro-transition the nation-state gradually looses its so one day it will disappear or will integrate into other meta-structures. They also argue that the international system is evolving towards a process of homogenisation and that postnational forces restrict more and more the action and efficiency of the nation-state. Other writers, such as institutionalists, or adherents of the
neorealist school, pretend that the international system relies upon political and legal basis of the state actor and that this latter still holds a monopoly and power in the current systemic configuration with tools such as sovereignty.

Our analysis will also enable us to introduce the dialectic of power in the international system. From there, we will be able to rethink and redefine the state as an actor in the Post Westphalian era. This work will also give us the opportunity to show how plural are the spaces where actors interact, and to underline the space in which the emergent interaction is no longer under State control. This is because interaction spaces occur henceforth in a simultaneous or consecutive time, at local, national and often transnational scales.

That is to say that from now on, actions between actors happen in a plural time and a plural space, with the phenomenon of ubiquity spreading over the globe. This situation illustrates how much our daily activities are henceforth no longer limited by the borders of the societies to which we belong. Indeed, our social relations in fields such as the economy, culture, politics, linguistics, medias, sciences, labour, etc. are no longer progressing in the same social spaces; some of these relations
expand at the local or national level, and others at the regional,
continental or global level. This situation brings in front of the nationstate many globalized spaces, and these increase their volume and speed, thanks to an ever growing technology.

At the same time, globalization occurs with and against the nationstate. This state, the Leviathan of the international system, reacts with reflexes to phenomenon becoming more and more blurred and liquid, and it is those reflexes which will determine the intensity of the turbulences.

Thus, this work will enable us to show that globalization materialises in multiple spaces and times and now reduces the meaning of constructions which appeared during the Westphalian era such as "borders", "geographical distance", "absolute sovereignty", and the "dialectics of power between the state and individuals". Yet this situation does not mean that the state actor vanishes or will vanish from the system: it is always the state, which in a solitary or collective way, has
the legitimate responsibility of protecting its own citizens in the Post Westphalian era. On the other hand, it is undeniable that the dialectics of power which existed before between the Leviathan and individuals undergoes a phase of transformation. Eventually, in this process of systemic transformation, we will consider whether Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan still holds "absolute power", as in the Westphalian system. Moreover, we will consider whether in the Post Westphalian era several Leviathans could have appeared within the current system interpretation. Post Westphalian actors, with their functions and actions, more and more escape the influence from the state. This situation leads us to rethink the international system along with the actors who belong to it.