Professional Documents
Culture Documents
E-mail: bilgi@uidergisi.com
Web: www.uidergisi.com
Bu makalenin tm haklar Uluslararas likiler Konseyi Derneine aittir. nceden yazl izin
alnmadan hi bir iletiim, kopyalama ya da yayn sistemi kullanlarak yeniden yaymlanamaz,
oaltlamaz, datlamaz, satlamaz veya herhangi bir ekilde kamunun cretli/cretsiz
kullanmna sunulamaz. Akademik ve haber amal ksa alntlar bu kuraln dndadr.
Aksi belirtilmedii srece Uluslararas likilerde yaynlanan yazlarda belirtilen fikirler
yalnzca yazarna/yazarlarna aittir. UK Derneini, editrleri ve dier yazarlar balamaz.
Bu makalenin ngilizce orijinali Level of Analysis and Unit of Analysis: A Case for
Distinction balyla Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Cilt 22, No 1, Bahar
1993, s. 77-88de yaynlanmtr. Makalenin Trkeye evrilmesine izin veren Nuri
Yurduseve ve Millennium Dergisine teekkr bor biliriz. Makalenin ngilizceden Trkeye
tercmesi Ahu zsolak tarafndan yaplmtr. Orijinal metinde olmayan anahtar kelimeler,
kaynaka ile uzun ngilizce zet makaleye eklenmitir.
**
Prof. Dr., ODT, BF, Uluslararas likiler Blm, Ankara. E-posta: any@metu.edu.tr. Bu
makaleyi hazrlarken, metni okuyan ve deerli yorumlarda bulunan Profesr Murray
Forsythn ve makaleyi okuyarak beni cesaretlendiren Profesr Jack Spencee teekkrlerimi
sunarm.
, Cilt 4, Say 16, K 2007-2008, s. 3-19
gruplar gibi dier rgtler (ikinci kategori) olmutur. Yine de, siyaset bilimi
rencileri, rnein liderlii altklar zaman, birinci kategori snrlar iinde
de almaktadrlar.
Uluslararas likilerde, Singern daha nce bahsedilen makalesinde
formle edildii gibi, analiz birimi ounlukla birey ihmal edilerek dier iki
kategoriye (ulus-devletler ve uluslararas sistem) ait olarak dnlmtr.
Singerdan nce Waltz, savan sebeplerini izah etmek iin uluslararas
ilikileri adantasvir (image) etmitir: insan asndan, ayr ayr devletler
asndan ve de devletler sistemi asndan.12 Waltzun tasviri, bizim l
analiz birimi snflandrmamzla uyumaktadr.13 Savan sebebi iin nerilen
bu tasvir uluslararas ilikilerin btnne kolaylkla temil edilebilir. Ayn
yl Wolfers, uluslararas ilikilerin, biri organize insan yaplar olarak devlet
zerinde ve dieri ise insanlar zerinde younlaan iki adan dnlmesi ve
anlalmas gerektiini vurgulamtr.14 Dolaysyla, Singer ikinci ve nc
kategorileri ne srerken, Wolfers birinci ve ikinci kategorileri nermiti.
Singer daha sonraki almalarnda, analiz seviyesi ne srmeye
balamtr. Singer, bu seviyeyi u ekilde ayrt eder: karar-alclar seviyesi
(birey), ulusal seviye ve sistemik seviye.15 Sonrasnda, daha kapsaml bir
tanm vermektedir. Analiz seviyesi ile aratrmacnn analiz nesnelerinin
bulunaca, tek bir bireyden kresel sisteme kadar uzanan dikey eksen
boyunca yer alan, bir noktadan baka bir eyi kastetmediini16
vurgulamaktadr.
artc
ekilde,
dierleri
l
snflandrmadan
uzaklama
17
grnmndedirler. Daha sonraki almasnda Waltz , birinci ve ikinci
kategorileri nemsiz olarak grme eilimindedir ve ilk almasnda
K. N. Waltz, Man, the State and War, New York, NY, Columbia University Press, 1959, s. 12.
Tabii ki, ne buradaki l snflandrma, ne de Waltzunki ncesiz deildir. St. Augustine
benzer bir emaya sahipti. Ona gre, insan ilikileri seviyede ilemektedir: aile, devlet
(civitas), ve St. Augustine tarafndan tanmlanmayan bir terim olmasna ramen, yine de
dnya toplumunu iaret ettii anlam karlabilen orbis terrarumdur. Baknz F. Parkinson,
The Philosophy of International Relations, Beverly Hills, CA, Sage Publications, 1977, s. 14.
Onsekizinci yzyln sonlarnda, Herder de l bir snflandrma yapmtr. Herder, i genetik
prensiplere uygun olarak byyen organik varlk olarak birey, halk (Volk) ve insanlk arasnda balant kurmaya almtr. Herder iin, Halk (Volk) bireye gre ne ise, insanlk da
Halka gre odur. Baknz J. G. Herder, Reflections on the Philosophy of the History of
Mankind, Chicago, IL, Chicago University Press, 1968, s. xix-xx.
14
A. Wolfers, The Actors in International Politics, W. T. R. Fox (der.), Theoretical Aspects of
International Relations, Notre Dame, IN, University of Notre Dame Press, 1959, s. 89.
15
J. D. Singer (der.), Quantitative International Politics: Insights and Evidence, New York, NY,
Free Press, 1968, s. 89.
16
J. D. Singer, A General System Taxonomy for Political Science, New York, NY, General
Learning Press, 1971, s. 16.
17
K. N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics, Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 1979.
12
13
boyutu,
onun
ana
parametreleri
olarak
kavramsallatrlmaktadr: Bunlardan birisi, bireylerin mikro seviyesinde
almakta, biri topluluklarn makro seviyesinde ilemekte ve ncs ise iki
seviyenin bir karmn kapsamaktadr.20
Son zamanlarda baz yazarlar deil, drt analiz birimi (seviyesi) tespit
edilebileceini savunmutur. Goldstein iin, bireye, devletlere ve uluslararas
sisteme ilaveten, dnya sistemi drdnc bir birimi (seviyeyi)
oluturmaktadr: Dnya seviyesinde bir analiz, uluslararas olandan farkldr.
Dnya seviyesi, paralar birbirinden ayrlabilir olmaktan ziyade karlkl
olarak kurucu nitelikte olan tek ve btnsel bir sistemden meydana gelirken,
uluslararas seviye, birbirinden ayrlabilir birimlerin (egemen ulus-devletler)
etkileimlerinden olumaktadr.21 Uluslararas ilikilerin birbirinden ayrlabilir
paralar ihtiva eden geleneksel tanmndan bakldnda, Goldstein,
uluslararas ve dnya seviyelerini birbirinden ayrt etmekte hakl olabilir, fakat
ben kapsayclk bakmndan fazla bir fark grmemekteyim. Hollis ve Smith,
tartma ieren drt seviye nermektedir. Uluslararas sistem, ulus
devlet, brokrasi ve bireyden oluan bu drt seviye, uluslararas sisteme
kar ulus-devlet, ulus-devlete kar brokrasi ve brokrasiye kar birey
tartmalaryla ilikilidir.22 Ulus-devlet ve brokrasi, farkl olmalarna ramen,
burada nerilmi olan ikinci kategoriye uygun gelmektedirler.
Grld gibi, problemin farkl kavramsallatrmasnda bir art olmutur.
Bu noktada ne yapabiliriz? renci btn olas birimleri gz nne almal
mdr veya onlardan birini mi semelidir? Eer ikincisiyse, hangisini
semelidir? ncelenen konuyu bak asndan da analiz etmek, analitik
kesinlik ve farkl birimlerin birbiriyle ilintisinden dolay, daha iyi olabilir.
Ancak bir kimse, tercihinin analiz zerine getirdii snrlamalar kabul etmek
Waltz, Man, the State and War, s. 14.
M. Banks, Bucking the System: A Peace Researchers Perspectives on the Study of
International Relations, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Cilt 16, No 2, 1987, s.
341.
20
J. N. Rosenau, Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity, Princeton,
NJ, Princeton University Press, 1990, s. 10.
21
J. S. Goldstein, Long Cycles: Prosperity and War in the Modern Age, New Haven, CT and
London, Yale University Press, 1988, s. 2.
22
M. Hollis ve S. Smith, Explaining and Understanding International Relations, Oxford,
Clarendon Press, 1991, s. 89.
18
19
10
24
25
11
12
13
G. Lukcs, History of Class Consciousness, Londra, Merlin Press, 1971, s. 27. Vurgu eklenmitir.
32
N. Geras, Marx and the Critique of Political Economy, R. Blackburn (der.), Ideology and
Social Science, Glasgow, William Collins and Sons, 1975, s. 305.
33
Waltz, Man, the State and War, s. 18, 40, 79.
34
A. Bergesen, The Emerging Science of the World- System, International Social Science
Journal, Cilt 34, No 91, 1982, s. 24.
31
14
A. Kuzminski, Archetypes and Paradigms: History, Politics, and Persons, History and
J. G. Ruggie, Continuity and Change in the World Polity, World Politics, Cilt 35, No 2, 1983,
s. 278.
36
15
Kaynaka
Aristotle, Politics, (ev. ve der.), J. Warrington, Londra, J. M. Dent and Sons, 1959.
Banks, M., Bucking the System: A Peace Researchers Perspectives on the Study of
International Relations, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Cilt 16, No 2,
1987.
Bergesen, A., The Emerging Science of the World- System, International Social
16
Nagel, E., On the Statement The Whole is More than the Sum of Its Parts, P. F.
Lazarsfeld ve M. Rosenberg (der.), The Language of Social Research, Glencoe, Free
Press, 1955.
Parkinson, F., The Philosophy of International Relations, Beverly Hills, CA, Sage
Publications, 1977.
Rosenau, J. N., Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity,
Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1990.
Ruggie, J. G., Continuity and Change in the World Polity, World Politics, Cilt 35, No
2, 1983.
Singer, J. D., The Level of Analysis Problem in International Relations, K. Knorr ve
S. Verba (der.), The International System: Theoretical Essays, Princeton, NJ,
Princeton University Press, 1961.
Singer, J. D., (der.), Quantitative International Politics: Insights and Evidence, New
York, NY, Free Press, 1968.
Singer, J. D., A General System Taxonomy for Political Science, New York, NY,
General Learning Press, 1971.
Toynbee, A. J., A Study of History, Vol. I, London, Oxford University Press, 1934.
Wallerstein, I., The Capitalist World-Economy, Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press, 1979.
Waltz, K. N., Man, the State and War, New York, NY, Columbia University Press,
1959.
Waltz, K. N., Theory of International Politics, Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 1979.
Wolfers, A., The Actors in International Politics, W. T. R. Fox (der.), Theoretical
Aspects of International Relations, Notre Dame, IN, University of Notre Dame Press,
1959.
17
Summary
The classic treatment of the level of analysis problem in International Relations is
J. D. Singers article on the subject published in 1961. According to Singers
formulation, the problem involves choosing the micro- or macro-level of analysis.
It refers to the way in which the phenomena under study may be sorted or arranged
for purposes of systematic analysis, and it relates to the question whether to
focus upon the parts or upon the whole, upon the components or upon the
system. Developing this theme Singer identified two levels of analysis in
International Relations: the international system and the national sub-systems.
Classic as it is, however, Singers formulation is incomplete and rather confusing.
For example, the selection of the micro- or macro-level of analysis and the sorting
and arranging of the phenomena under study do not necessarily mean the same
thing. Moreover he reduces the level of analysis and the unit of analysis to one
category, without distinguishing between the two, taking them to be the same.
Finally, he identifies only two levels (or units).
Every intellectual and scientific study begins with the question of how the
subject under scrutiny can be analysed (the problem of methodology). The problem
of methodology, in turn, relates to the context within which (or the level at which)
we examine the topic. It also relates to what we study at that level, or what the
major actor(s) of the subject is (are). The search for answers to the first question
(context and level) leads us to the level of analysis, and the search for answer to
the second question (what to study and actors) to the unit of analysis.
By establishing the level of analysis the subject in question is placed in a
context. What then are these levels? It seems to me that Buckleys three levels (1empirical research, 2- logico-deductive theory, and 3- frameworks, models, or
philosophies) may be modified to become: 1- the philosophical, 2- the theoretical
and 3-the practical (or phenomenological) levels.
At the first or philosophical level, the analyst or student is faced with the most
general beliefs, assumptions, postulates, principles and premises which together
form and define the background of the subject in question and its place within
general human thought; and which identify and give meaning to his problem. At the
second or theoretical level, the problem is defined in a more concrete way upon the
basis drawn at the first level. The issue is given identifiable and distinguishable
boundaries. At the third or practical level, he no longer concentrates on the
philosophical background, or theoretical content of the problem, but upon its
everyday manifestations, direct implications, and influences.
A conceptualisation of system and international system relates to the first level
of analysis (philosophical); the formulation of balance of power or bipolar
international systems denotes the second level of analysis (theoretical); and an
analysis of the historical Concert of Europe system or post-war system operates at
the third level.
An analysis does not have to follow and involve respectively these three levels. It
may be done at one of them and thus it may be called philosophical, or theoretical,
or practical analysis. It may not be, and I should think is not, possible to make a
clear-cut demarcation between these levels, since the researcher working at one
level may sometimes draw propositions from the other levels. The specification of
18
19