You are here

Modernite ve Postmodernite Süreçlerinde Kamu Yönetimi, Siyasa Yapım Sürecinin İletişimsel Motifleri ve Demokratikleşme Üzerine Kuramsal Bir Tartışma

A Theoretical Debate in Regard to Public Administration, Democratization and Communication Patterns Within Policy Making Processes in Modernity and Post Modernity Processes

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Abstract (2. Language): 
One of the critiques oriented to the processes of public administrative processes within the controversies of postmodernity and modernity has been the democratization of related schemes. In particular, within the modernist conception, public administrative processes have been dominated by technocratic and expertise knowledge. In this context, instrumental rationality has been the backbone of modernist designs of public administration. The basic objective of the study is to present a theoretical debate in regard to communication patterns linked to the policy-making processes within modernity and post modernity debates and the relation of the themes’ contribution to the democratization.. In handling the matter, as the study succinctly presents an overview of modernity and post modernity discussions in an interdisciplinary manner between public administration and communication theory. The effort is to elucidate on theoretical tools to contemplate over the problem of democratization in relation to the policy-making by means of utilizing an approach of political culture framing identities, political symbols and meanings.
Abstract (Original Language): 
Postmodernite ve modernite tartışmalarında kamu yönetimi süreçlerine en çok yöneltilen eleştiriler ilgili süreçlerin demokratikleştirilmesi üzerine olmuştur. Bilhassa, modernist kurgulamada, kamu yönetimi süreçleri teknokratik ve uzman bilginin baskınlığını kurmuş olduğu alanlar olarak düşünülmüş ve bu bağlamda araçsal ussallık modernist kamu yönetimi kuramlarının belkemiğini oluşturmuştur. Bu kapsamda, çalışmanın amacı, modernite ve postmodernite tartışmaları dâhilinde siyasa yapım süreçlerinin etkinliğine yönelik iletişim temelli süreçlerin ve temaların demokratikleşemeye katkıları bakımından kuramsal bir tartışmayı okuyucunun ilgisine sunmaktır. Çalışma hedefini gerçekleştirirken, modernizm ve postmodernizm tartışmalarını kamu yönetimi ve iletişim bilimleri bağlamında disiplinler arası bir yaklaşımla harmanlamaktadır. Toplumsal kimlikleri, siyasal sembol ve anlamları çerçeveleyen bir siyasal kültür yaklaşımı kurgulayarak, ilgili çalışma, siyasa yapım süreçleri bakımından demokratikleşme sorunu üzerine düşünmeye yönelik kuramsal bir araç geliştirmeye çalışmaktadır.
39-52

REFERENCES

References: 

ANDERSON, P, (2000), Postmodernitenin Kökenleri, Çev. Elçin Gen, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul.
AUDI, R, (1998), Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge, Routledge, London.
BAKER, K. M. (2001), What's Left of Enlightenment?: A Postmodern Question, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto.
BARKER, Chris, (2005), Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. Sage, London.
BAUMAN, Zygmund, (1991), Modernity and Ambivalence, Polity Press, Cambridge.
BERTENS, H, (1995), The Idea of the Postmodern: A History, Routledge, London.
BEST, S. ve KELLNER, D. (1998) Postmodern Teori: Eleştirel Soruşturmalar, (Çev: Mehmet Küçük), Ayrıntı Yayınları, İstanbul.
BLACKBURN, S, (1994), The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
BOGASON,Peter,(2001),“Postmodernism and American Public Administration in the 1990s”, Administration and Society,33(2),165-193
BOURDIEU, Pierre, (2006), Pratik Nedenler, Çev. Hülya Uğur Tanrıöver, Hil Yayınları, İstanbul.
CASCARDI, A. J, (1999), Consequences of Enlightenment, Cambridge University Press, Port Chester.
CASTELLS, Manuel, (2008), Enformasyon Çağı: Ekonomi, Toplum ve Kültür, İkinci Cilt: Kimliğin Gücü, (Çev. Ebru Kılıç), Bilgi
Üniversitesi Yayınları, İstanbul.
DANZIGER, Marie (1995), "Policy Analysis Postmodernized: Some Political and Pedagogical Ramifications." Policy Studies Journal,
23: No. 3: 435-450.
DEMİR, Fatih, (2011), “Kamu Politikası Oluşturma Sürecinde “Müzakere”nin Rolü ve Kamu Politikası Sürecinin
Demokratikleştirilmesi”, Kamu Politikaları Teorisi, Alican Batık (Ed.), Seçkin Yayınevi, Ankara.
De LEON, Peter (1988), Advice and Consent: The Development the Policy Sciences, Russell Sage Foundation, New York.
---------- (1992), "The Democratization of the Policy Sciences.", Public Administration Review, 52 (March-April): 125-129.
DRYZEK, John S (1982), "Policy Analysis as a Hermeneutic Activity, PolicySciences. 14: 309-29.
---------- (1990), Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
EDGAR, Andrew, Sedgwick, Peter, (2007), Kültürel Kuramda Anahtar Kavramlar, Çev. Mesut Karaşahan, Açılım Kitap, İstanbul.
FARMER, David John, (1995). The Language of Public Administration: Bureaucracy, Modernity, and Postmodernity. Tuscaloosa:
University of Alabama Press.
--------- (1996), “The Postmodern Turn and the Socratic Gadfly”, Administrative Theory and Praxis, 1, 109-116.
--------- (Ed.). (1998). Papers on the Art of Anti-Administration. Burke,VA.: Chatelaine.
Featherstone, Mike, (2007), Consumer Culture and Postmodernism, Second Edition, Sage Publications, London.
FISCHER, Frank, (1980), Politics, Values, and Public Policy: The Problem of Methodology: Boulder: Colorado.
--------- (1990, Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. Newbury Park: Sage.
--------- (1995), Evaluating Public Policy, Nelson-Hall Publisher, Chicago.
--------- (2003), Framing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Delibrative Practices, Oxford, University Press Oxford.
--------- (2007) Delibrative Policy Analysis as Practical Reason: In tegrating Emprirical and Normative Arguments. Fischer, Frank,
Gerald J. Miller and Mara S. Sidney. (ed) Handbook of Public Policy Analysis, CRC Press, NW.
--------- (2009) Democracy and Expertise: Reorienting Public Inquiry Oxford University Press, Oxford.
ULUSLARARASI ALANYA İŞLETME FAKÜLTESİ DERGİSİ 4/1 (2012)
51
FISCHER, Frank and John Forester. eds. (1993). The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Chapel Hill, NC: Duke
University Press.
FISCHER, Frank and John Forrester eds. (1987). Confronting Values Policy Analysis: The Politics of Criteria. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
FOUCAULT, Michel, (2003), Toplumu Savunmak Gerekir, (Çev. Şehsuvar Aktaş), Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul.
GERAS, N. (1999), Enlightenment and Modernity, Palgrave Publishers, NewYork.
GERTH, H. H., and Mills, C. W (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Oxford University Press, New York.
GEERTZ, Clifford, (1973), The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, Basic Boks, Inc. USA.
GIDDENS, Anthony, (1990), the Consequences of Modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.
--------- (1998), Conversations with Anthony Giddens: Making Sense of Modernity, Stanford University Press, Stanford, Calif.
--------- (2009), Sociology (Sixth Edition). Polity, Cambridge .
--------- (2010), Kapitalizm ve Modern Sosyal Teori, (Çev. Ümit Tatlıcan), İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul.
GOODSELL, Charles T., (1983), The Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration Polemic. Chatham House, Chatham, N.J.
GOFFMAN, Erving, (1956), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, University of Edinburgh, Social Sciences Research Center,
Monograph No: 2, George Square, Edinburgh.
GRENZ, Stanley,(1996), A primer on postmodernism,Eerdmans, Michigan
HABERMAS, Jürgen, (1985). The Theory of Communicative Action Vol1,2 Polity Cambridge, MA.
HABERMAS, Jurgen,(2001), İletişimsel Eylem Kuramı (Çev. M. Tüzel),, Kabalcı Yayınları, İstanbul
HALL, Stuart, (1992) Formations of Modernity. Ed. Hall and Bram Gieben. Polity, Cambridge.
---------, (1994a), “İdeolojinin Yeniden Keşfi: Medya Çalışmalarında Baskı Altında Tutulanın Geri Dönüşü”, Medya, İktidar, İdeoloji,
(Derleyen ve Çeviren: Mehmet Küçük), Ark Yayınevi, Ankara.
---------, (1994b), “Kültür, Medya ve İdeolojik Etki”, Medya, İktidar, İdeoloji, (Derleyen ve Çeviren: Mehmet Küçük), Ark Yayınevi,
Ankara.
HARDT, MICHAEL, NEGRI, ANTONIO (2003), İmparatorluk (çev. Abdullah Yılmaz), Ayrıntı Yayınları, İstanbul.
HAWKESFORTH,M.E., (1988) Theoretical Issues in Policy Analysis, State University of New York Press, NY.
HELLER, A. ve Fehrér, F, (1989) The Postmodern Political Condition, Columbia University Press, New York.
JUN, Jong, S, (2006), The social construction of public administration: interpretive and critical perspectives, State University of New
York, Albany.
KAUFMAN, H (1981). “Fear of Bureaucracy: A Raging Pandemic”, PublicAdministration Review. Vol. 41, no. 1 ( January/February),
pp. 1–9.
KASS, H. D., and Catron, B. L. (Eds.) ,(1990). Images and Identities in Public Administration, Sage, Newbury Park, Calif.
KENNINGTON, Richard, (2004), On Modern Origins: Essays in Early Modern Philosophy, (edited by Pamela Kraus and Frank Hunt),
Lexington Books,Lanham, Md.
LIEBERMAN, J. K (1970). The Tyranny of the Experts, Walker New York.
LYOTARD, Jean François, (1984), the Postmodern Condition: a Report On Knowledge, Eng. Trans. Geoff Bennington and Brain
Massumi, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
MCSWITE, O. C (1997), Legitimacy in Public Administration: A Discourse Analysis, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif.
NORIIS, Christopher (1995). "Modernism." in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, (edited by Ted Honderich), 583. Oxford
University Press,Oxford and New York.
OKÇU, Murat ( 2003) "Postmodernizm ve Kamu Yönetimi", Çağdaş Kamu Yönetimi I-Konular, Kuramlar, Kavramlar, Nobel Yayınları,
içinde, ss.97-123
OSBORNE, Pete. (1992), "Modernity Is a Qualitative, Not a Chronological, Category: Notes on the Dialectics of Differential Historical
Time"., in Postmodernism and the Re-reading of Modernity,( edited by Francis Barker, Peter Hulme, and Margaret Iversen.
Essex Symposia, Literature, Politics, Theory.) Manchester University Press, Manchester.
ÖZALP, Ahmet, (2009) ,‘ Modern Paradigmanın Krizi ve Devlet Üzerine Etkileri’ Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi, 1,1,1-10
PATEMAN, C (1970), Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
RICHARDSON, H. S (2002), Democratic Autonomy: Public Reasoning about the Ends of Policy, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
ROSENAU, Pauline Marie (1992), Post-modernism and the Social Sciences: Insights, Inroads, and Intrusions, Princeton University
Press, Princeton, N.J.
SCHACTER, H. L (1997), Reinventing Government or Reinventing Ourselves, State University of New York, Press Albany.
SMITH, Philip, (2007), Kültürel Kuram, (Çev. Selime Güzelsarı, İbrahim Gündoğdu), Babil Yayınları, İstanbul.
ÖZER-BAŞTAN
52
TÜRKOĞLU, Nurçay, (2010), İletişim Bilimlerinden Kültürel Çalışmalara Toplumsal İletişim: Tanımlar, Kavramlar, Tartışmalar,
Dördüncü Baskı, Urban Kitap: 1, İstanbul.
TÜRKOĞLU, Nurçay, (2000), Görü-Yorum: Gündelik Yaşamda İmgelerin Gücü, Der Yayınları, İstanbul.
WHITE, Jay D, (1992a), “Knowledge Development and Use in Public Administration: Views from Postposit ivism, Poststructrulism and
Postmodernism”, Timney Bailey, Mary ve Mayer, Richard T. (eds.), Public Management in an Interconnected World, içinde,
Greenwood Press, New York.
--------- (1992b), “Taking Language Seriously: Toward A Narrative Theory Knowledge for Administrative Research”, American Review
of Public Administration, 22(2), 75-88.
WHITE, Jay D., Adams, Guy B (1994), Research in Public Administration. Reflections on Theory and Practice. Sage, London.
WHITE, Orion F. ve McSwain, Cynthia J (1990), “The Phoenix Project: Raising a New Image of Public Administration of the Past”,
Kass, Henry ve Catron, Bayard (eds.) Images and Identities in Public Administration, içinde, Sage, London.
WOLLER, Gary M. (1997), “Public Administration and Postmodernism”, American Behavioral Scientist, 41 (1), 9-11.
ZILLIOĞLU, Merih, (2010), İletişim Nedir?, 4. Basım, Cem Yayınevi, İstanbul.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com