What do you think?
Rate this book
1648 Söylencesi: Sınıf, Jeopolitik ve Modern Uluslararası İlişkilerin Kuruluşu
Bazen belli bir alanda ortaya atılan bir görüş baskın hale gelir, zaman içinde neredeyse tartışılmaz nitelik kazanır, sonraki kuşakların da eleştirel bir bakış getirmemesi sonucunda yegâne gerçeğe dönüşür. Uluslararası ilişkiler düşünüldüğünde, 1648 tarihi ve bu tarihin çağrıştırdığı Westphalia Barışı böyle bir özelliğe sahiptir: Ulus-devletin tanımlanması, Ortaçağ’dan modern zamanlara geçiş, modern anlamıyla uluslararası ilişkilerin oluşumu vb. çok uzun yıllar boyunca hep bu ikisiyle ilişkilendirilmiştir.
Genç kuşak kuramcılardan Benno Teschke bu yaygın kabule Charles Tilly’nin tabiriyle “sosyolojinin tarihle karşılaştığı” yer- den, tarihsel sosyoloji penceresinden eleştirel bir yaklaşım, radikal bir itiraz getiriyor. Teschke’ye göre, yaşananlar bir yandan tek bir tarihe, tek bir olguya sığdırılamayacak kadar büyük ölçekli, uzun soluklu, kademeli bir dönüşümün safhaları; diğer yandan, “büyük adamların” imza attıkları antlaşmaların çok ötesinde mülkiyet ilişkileri, sınıf yapısı, iktisadi cephe, toplumsal doku, jeopolitik gibi etkenleri içeren karmaşık, çok boyutlu bir sürecin sonucu.
Teschke’nin getirdiği perspektifin, açmaya çalıştığı tartışmanın, uluslararası ilişkiler alanındaki kimi dominant paradigmalarla girdiği hesaplaşmanın, bu arada kaleme aldığı konuya ilişkin literatür değerlendirmesinin ilgiye değer olduğu aşikâr.
Genç kuşak kuramcılardan Benno Teschke bu yaygın kabule Charles Tilly’nin tabiriyle “sosyolojinin tarihle karşılaştığı” yer- den, tarihsel sosyoloji penceresinden eleştirel bir yaklaşım, radikal bir itiraz getiriyor. Teschke’ye göre, yaşananlar bir yandan tek bir tarihe, tek bir olguya sığdırılamayacak kadar büyük ölçekli, uzun soluklu, kademeli bir dönüşümün safhaları; diğer yandan, “büyük adamların” imza attıkları antlaşmaların çok ötesinde mülkiyet ilişkileri, sınıf yapısı, iktisadi cephe, toplumsal doku, jeopolitik gibi etkenleri içeren karmaşık, çok boyutlu bir sürecin sonucu.
Teschke’nin getirdiği perspektifin, açmaya çalıştığı tartışmanın, uluslararası ilişkiler alanındaki kimi dominant paradigmalarla girdiği hesaplaşmanın, bu arada kaleme aldığı konuya ilişkin literatür değerlendirmesinin ilgiye değer olduğu aşikâr.
416 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2003
8 people are currently reading
287 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
November 8, 2011
This book is one of the greatest contributors to the re-evaluation of international relations theory. Before I get into the review a few technical warnings should be issued. This is not a book for those who have no background in international relations (IR) theory. The author uses a lot of jargon and is trying to refute many of the top theorists in IR today so it is not a good starting point for world order. On that note though this is a truly important development in the way IR theorists view the world. Many IR theorists today are reexamining the role of the state in international politics and whether or not the state is the correct way to analyze actors on a world stage.
The Myth of 1648 goes a step beyond this and shows that the state is not even a valid organism for assessing actors on a world stage. He shows that people had a way of defining sovereignty and identity as early as the middle ages by the way they were aligned to a king or lord and that these are ways to organize as well. It relies along the newer accepted technique of defining organization along cultural lines and in this case taking it a step further to class lines. It goes to class lines without having the usual Marxist tone of revolution which provides a more useful way to organize since the revolutions frequently do not occur. The book relies on the organization of people through geopolitics and regional organizations that do not necessarily have to be states. It shows that whether absolutist or even capitalist Britain people organize around familial ties and not limited by traditional state geography.
This book is brilliantly done and a well thought out argument for those who are used to typical IR theory. Like most IR theory it is filled with jargon so if you are starting out this is not the best book to begin with. Try John Mearshiemer or Kenneth Waltz to begin with and then expand to something like this.
The Myth of 1648 goes a step beyond this and shows that the state is not even a valid organism for assessing actors on a world stage. He shows that people had a way of defining sovereignty and identity as early as the middle ages by the way they were aligned to a king or lord and that these are ways to organize as well. It relies along the newer accepted technique of defining organization along cultural lines and in this case taking it a step further to class lines. It goes to class lines without having the usual Marxist tone of revolution which provides a more useful way to organize since the revolutions frequently do not occur. The book relies on the organization of people through geopolitics and regional organizations that do not necessarily have to be states. It shows that whether absolutist or even capitalist Britain people organize around familial ties and not limited by traditional state geography.
This book is brilliantly done and a well thought out argument for those who are used to typical IR theory. Like most IR theory it is filled with jargon so if you are starting out this is not the best book to begin with. Try John Mearshiemer or Kenneth Waltz to begin with and then expand to something like this.
November 24, 2017
Excellent revisionist history of the emergence of the modern states-system drawing on the 'Political Marxist' school of historical analysis.
The author argues that the Westphalian treaties of c.1648 did not mark the transition to modernity in international relations but rather witnessed the continuation of pre-capitalist geopolitical relationships founded on precapitalist social-property relations in the absolutist regimes of the Continent.
The only genuine transition to modern sovereignty occurred instead in England, through the late medieval transition to capitalist agriculture and eventual social revolutions of the 17th century (the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution) that consolidated the power of a de-privatised state ruled by an 'economically' rather than politically-constituted oligarchy of commercial landlords reliant on the profits of their capitalist tenant farmers. This was reflected internationally in a specifically capitalist mode of foreign policy that aimed at genuine power balancing and non-territorial/military but rather primarily commercial hegemony.
This modern state-society relationship, predicated on a 'separation' between the political and economic (or the state and civil society), was generalised to the Continent through the 'socially combined but geographically uneven' process by which British hegemony was entrenched internationally. Pre-capitalist ruling classes and absolutist states were forced to innovate and modernise in the face of overwhelming commercial and military superiority emanating from capitalist Britain over the period from the 1640s-to WW1.
Somewhat dry and technical language (it is an academic intervention in IR Theory after all) loses it a star.
The author argues that the Westphalian treaties of c.1648 did not mark the transition to modernity in international relations but rather witnessed the continuation of pre-capitalist geopolitical relationships founded on precapitalist social-property relations in the absolutist regimes of the Continent.
The only genuine transition to modern sovereignty occurred instead in England, through the late medieval transition to capitalist agriculture and eventual social revolutions of the 17th century (the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution) that consolidated the power of a de-privatised state ruled by an 'economically' rather than politically-constituted oligarchy of commercial landlords reliant on the profits of their capitalist tenant farmers. This was reflected internationally in a specifically capitalist mode of foreign policy that aimed at genuine power balancing and non-territorial/military but rather primarily commercial hegemony.
This modern state-society relationship, predicated on a 'separation' between the political and economic (or the state and civil society), was generalised to the Continent through the 'socially combined but geographically uneven' process by which British hegemony was entrenched internationally. Pre-capitalist ruling classes and absolutist states were forced to innovate and modernise in the face of overwhelming commercial and military superiority emanating from capitalist Britain over the period from the 1640s-to WW1.
Somewhat dry and technical language (it is an academic intervention in IR Theory after all) loses it a star.
March 1, 2008
You can say 'neomarxist' without several hundred pages.
November 7, 2018
it's important to know that this is Teschke's doctoral thesis and reads like a thesis rather than a book. Most of it is interminable unless you are a scholar and has no importance to daily life unless you're going to remember the amount of inter-village trade in medieval England. What geopolitical points there are get buried under the avalanche of statistics.
The title says it all. Next time you're having a dinner party conversation and someone brings up the treaty of Westphalia, let them know it's a myth, and if they challenge you, point to the book. If they want more info, you can tell them you hired me to read it for you, and that Benno's points were very persuasive and that the treaty is a myth.
Anything more is well beyond the realm of dinner conversation. Stop talking to the person. If they're an academic, they'll do their own research. If you want to know more, read this interview with Benno.
https://www.viewpointmag.com/2016/08/...
The title says it all. Next time you're having a dinner party conversation and someone brings up the treaty of Westphalia, let them know it's a myth, and if they challenge you, point to the book. If they want more info, you can tell them you hired me to read it for you, and that Benno's points were very persuasive and that the treaty is a myth.
Anything more is well beyond the realm of dinner conversation. Stop talking to the person. If they're an academic, they'll do their own research. If you want to know more, read this interview with Benno.
https://www.viewpointmag.com/2016/08/...
February 21, 2010
An important and interesting challenge to mainstream IR theory
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews