Suchergebnisse

History comes across as a product of the effort to create social memory, written or verbal. It is based on information and documents and avoids emotional biases. Music, on the other hand, is a multifaceted phenomenon and its aim to entertain shapes it. On one hand, it interprets emotions, and on the other hand it bears the social, cultural and historical codes of the society to which it belongs. For this reason, it is possible to discover specific details of historical events in the kilams/songs of dengbêjs, important exponents of the Kurdish music of orality. This study focuses on unveiling traces of historical events in the songs of the dengbêjs, in context of the relationship between history and music. Information and documents dealing with the Kozanoğlu events in kilam/songs are compared. A good example of the importance of the dengbêjs in Kurdish history is taken from when in the 19th century, the Ottoman state established a military unit called Fırka-i Islahiye as a part of its policy of asserting its full dominance in rural areas, and also to carry out compulsory resettlement policies. In order to support the operation, the Kurdish chief Sürmeli Memed Pasha set out, taking with him under his auspices Evdale Zeynikê, a dengbej singer. However, the Kurdish troops reaching Kozan were defeated due to the climatic conditions and the cholera epidemic. Witnessing all the events, Evdale Zeynikê sang kilam/songs for every stop on the route and on the death of the Pasha. Throughout this account, which is based in Kurdish culture and immured with a strong dengbêj tradition, it is possible to find details of Kurdish history in the kilams/songs of the dengbêjs.

The aim of this research is to reveal the bibliometric analysis of the published articles on collective memory. For this purpose, journal articles published in the Web of Science database were examined. In the Web of Science database, the keywords; collective memory" was searched in the categories of history, geography, and educational research. The study material is limited to 1986-2021 as the year, English as the publication language and SSCI, ESCI and A&HCI as indexes. The data obtained from the Web of Science database were analyzed with the bibliometrix package included in the RStudio program. Related to the subject of collective memory, annual production, the most relevant authors, the most relevant journals, the number of article productions in countries, the most frequently used sources, the most used keywords in the researches and the current trends in the articles on the subject of collective memory were determined in the journal articles. As a result of the research, it was identified that in recent years, when the articles written on the subject of social memory in history, geography and education researches have been increasing and diversifying, issues such as commemorative culture, space, violence, power and politics have created a trend towards this field. It was determined that the most relevant countries for the subject area were the USA, England, Israel, Germany and Canada. In the articles written on collective memory, it was determined that the most frequently used keywords of the researchers were history, politics, identity, memory, war, place, holocaust, and commemoration culture. It is thought that these results will give perspective to researchers who plan to conduct research in this field.

This handbook suggests a global, transnational perspective on the history of education as a field. Apart from an introductory chapter written by the editors, the text includes 36 articles divided into six parts. Each article describes a subject in the field and ends with a bibliography for further reading. As repeatedly stressed in the book, this field has developed since the early nineteenth century with the emergence of the modern nation-state. Its scope and content expanded and underwent some transformations since the 1960s with the introduction of new perspectives, issues, and methods through interaction with the discipline of history and the broader social sciences.

Demokrasinin bir yönetim biçimi olarak ele alınmasının tarihi oldukça eski olmasına rağmen bu yönetim biçiminin belirli değerler temelinde idealize edilme tarihi nispeten yenidir. Antik Yunan'dan itibaren "kimlerin kimleri kimler çıkarına yönetecekleri" sorunsalı bağlamında ele alınan demokrasi zamanla "genel irade", "halkın egemenliği", "insan hakları", "özgürlükler" vs gibi "yüksek değerlerin" garantörü ve bu değerlerin tahakkuk edebilmelerinin zorunlu dayanağı şeklinde tarif edilmeye başlanmıştır. Schumpeter'in "demokrasinin klasik doktrini" olarak adlandırdığı bu yaklaşım; aksiyolojik bir demokrasi yorumu geliştirmiştir. Demokrasinin aldığı bu yeni yorumlama biçimine yönelik birtakım itirazlar yöneltilmiştir. Bunlar arasında en kayda değer olanlardan biri Avusturyalı iktisatçı ve politik bilimci Josef Alois Schumpeter'dir. Bu tarz bir demokrasi telakkisini ve onun müstenid olduğu insan tasavvurunu kritize eden yazar "demokrasinin klasik doktrini" olarak isimlendirdiği siyasal öğretiye önemli eleştiriler getirmiştir. Yazar öncelikle 18. yüzyılda hatları netleşen söz konusu doktrinin temel bileşenlerini tespit etmeye çalışır. Bu doktrinin yaslandığı temel kavramları ve prensipleri tartışmaya açan düşünür daha sonra bunların taşıdığı içsel çelişkilere odaklanır. Bir çeşit illüzyon olarak gördüğü demokrasinin klasik yorumunu eleştiren Schumpeter teorideki muhteva ile pratikteki sonuçlar arasındaki farklara işaret ederek demokrasinin üzerindeki " mistik örtüyü" kaldırmayı amaçlar. Sonunda aslında demokrasinin gerçekte ne olduğu ile ilgili kişisel kanaatini serdeder. Bu çalışmada Schumpeter'in demokrasinin klasik yorumuna getirdiği eleştiriler kendi yorumlama tarzı üzerinden ele alınmış ve yazarın demokrasi tanımlaması ile çalışma sonlandırılmıştır. ; The history of taking democracy as a form of government is quite old. However, the date of idealization of this form of governance on the basis of certain values is relatively new. Democracy, the matter at hand in the context of the problematic of 'who will govern whom in whoose benefit' has started to be defined in due course as the guarantor of ''high values'' such as; "general will", "popular sovereignty", ''human rights "," liberties'' etc. and the mandatory basis for these values to be accrued. This approach, which Schumpeter calls the 'classical doctrine of democracy' has developed an axiological interpretation of democracy. Some objections have been raised to this new interpretation of democracy. One of the most notable of these is the Austrian economist and political scientist Josef Alois Schumpeter. The author who criticizes consideration of this kind of democracy and conception of humanity based on it, has given considerable criticism to the political doctrine with his own words as 'the classical doctrine of democracy'. The author first attempts to identify the basic components of the mentioned doctrine which became clear in the 18th century.The philosoper who opens up the basic concepts and principles to which this doctrine is based on, then focuses on the internal contradictions that they carry. Schumpeter, who criticizes the classical interpretation of democracy, which he sees as some kind of illusion, aims to remove the 'mystical cover' on democracy by pointing out the differences between the content in theory and the practical results. In the end, he actually propounds his personal opinion about what democracy really is. In this study, Schumpeter's criticisms of the classical interpretation of democracy were handled in terms of his own style of interpretation, and the study was concluded with the author's definition of democracy.

Modernleşme süreci ile artan siyasal katılım, insan haklarının genişlemesi ve bireylerin yönetimde daha fazla söz sahibi olması gibi unsurlar demokratik ortamı geliştirmiş, bu da siyasal partilerin önemini artırmıştır. Siyasi partilerin siyasal açıdan birer güç unsuru haline gelmesi, partileşme sürecini niceliksel olarak geliştirmiştir. Bu konu hakkında kriz teorisi, parlamento dışında doğan partiler, kuşaksal yaş ve fonksiyon gibi yaklaşımlar ortaya atılmıştır. Partileşme sürecinde gerçekleştirilen ideolojik söylem ise partilerin neyi eleştirdiğini, kurumsal kimliklerini ve yukarıda bahsedilen hangi yaklaşım çerçevesinde partileştiklerini ortaya koymaktadır. Bu durumdan hareketle ülkemizde partileşme sürecinde olan Demokrasi ve Atılım (DEVA) Partisi ile Gelecek Partisi'nin ideolojik söylemi nasıl araçsallaştırıldığının incelenmesi araştırmanın amacını oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmada Demokrasi ve Atılım (DEVA) Partisi ile Gelecek Partisi'nin parti programları iktidarı eleştiri ve kendi ideolojisini söylemleştirme çerçevesinde Foucaultcu Söylem Analizi yöntemi ile analiz edilmiştir. Demokrasi ve Atılım (DEVA) Partisi'nin hem iktidar muhafazakarlığını eleştirerek hem de kendi ideolojisini araçsallaştırarak ideolojik söylem inşa ettiği görülmüştür. Gelecek Partisi'nin programında ise yalnızca iktidar eleştirisinin varlığından söz edilmektedir. ; Increasing political participation with the modernization process, the expansion of human rights and the fact that individuals have more say in management have developed the democratic environment, which has increased the importance of political parties. The political parties becoming an element of political power have quantitatively improved the process of partyization. Approaches such as crisis theory, parties born out of parliament, generational age and function have been introduced. The ideological discourse made in the process of partying reveals what the parties criticized, their institutional identities and within which framework they were partying. Based on this situation, the purpose of the research is to examine how the Democracy and Progress Party's (DEVA) and the Future Party are instrumentalized in the process of partyization in our country. In the study, the party programs of the Democracy and Progress Party's (DEVA) and the Future Party were analyzed by Foucauldian Discourse Analysis method in the framework of criticizing the power and discourse of its own ideology. It was seen that the Democracy and Progress Party's (DEVA) built ideological discourse both by criticizing the conservatism of political power and instrumentalizing its own ideology. In the program of the Future Party, only the critique of power is mentioned.

Bu makalenin amacı Türkiye-Yunanistan arasındaki Kıbrıs meselesi üzerinden Demokratik Barış Teorisi'nin (DBT) sorgulanmasıdır. Bu sorgulama dört aşamada yapılmıştır. Öncelikle DBT'nin düşünsel arka planı ele alınmış, ardından teori kavramsal ve kuramsal açıdan kısaca tanıtılmıştır. Üçüncü aşamada teorinin başlıca teorisyenlerinden biri olan Michael Doyle'un her iki ülkeyi liberal-demokratik ya da tersi ilan ettiği dönemler yine teorinin bir ülkeyi liberal-demokratik olarak tanımlamak için başvurduğu kurumlar üzerinden değerlendirilmiş; her iki ülkenin bu dönemlerdeki durumları analiz edilmiştir. Sonuç bölümünde ise her iki ülkenin savaşma ya da savaşmama kararları ile sahip oldukları rejimin türü arasındaki bağıntı sorgulanmıştır. Bu çalışmada temel olarak; Michael Doyle'un Türkiye'yi 1971-1974 ve Yunanistan'ı 1967-1975 dönemlerinde anti-liberal rejimlere sahip iki ülke olarak tanımlayıp 1974 yılında savaşmalarını bu duruma bağlamasının tek başına yeterli gerçekçi bir yaklaşım olmadığı sonucuna varılmış, her iki ülkenin savaş kararı almalarında sadece rejim türlerinin değil; Soğuk Savaş dönemi dinamiklerinin ve iki ülkenin uluslararası çıkarlarının da etkili olduğu kanaatine ulaşılmıştır. ; The purpose of this article is to examine the Democratic Peace Theory in the framework of the Cyprus issue between Turkey and Greece. This inquiry has been carried out in four stages. First, the intellectual background of the Democratic Peace Theory was discussed, and then the theory was briefly introduced conceptually and theoretically. In the third stage, the periods when Michael Doyle, one of the main theorists of the theory, declared both countries as liberal-democratic or vice versa, were evaluated through the institutions that the theory applied to define a country as liberal-democratic and the situations of both countries in these periods were analyzed. In the conclusion part, the relationship between the decisions of both countries to fight or not to fight and the type of regime they have is examined. In this study, it was concluded that Michael Doyle defined both Turkey between the periods 1971-1974 and Greece between the periods 1967-1975 as the two anti-liberal regimes countries, and indicates that linking the war of the two countries in 1974 to this situation is not a sufficient realistic approach. Not only the regime types but also the Cold War era dynamics and the international interests of the two countries were effective in the war decision of both countries.