LEE- Siyaset Çalışmaları-Yüksek Lisans
Bu koleksiyon için kalıcı URI
Gözat
Son Başvurular
1 - 5 / 12
-
ÖgeUnderstanding epistemic injustice through speech act theory(ITU Institute of Science and Technology, 2025-05-22)Justice as a concept has always been a topic of debate in terms of what constitutes its nature and how it should be dealt with. Although almost every individual recognises its significance, how it should be distributed is contested. Throughout the history, different cultures and thinkers have attempted to reach to a definition of justice. Since it is a concept involving interpersonal affairs, many other concepts also come into play in understanding justice. Some of these concepts are virtue, equality, fairness and liberty and so forth. For a long time, justice was only considered as distributing goods and giving someone what they are due. As libertarian thinkers emerge, the concept of justice was shaped to integrate the assurance that while distributing goods, an individual's liberty would not be infringed. It is only relative recently that the social aspect of justice encompassing the emphasis on social identity has been incorporated in theories of justice. With this addition, theorists urge us to think about how one's social identity shapes their interactions with others including power, access to opportunities as an individual and one's treatment as an individual in civil and social institutions, not merely distribution of goods. With these developments in theories of justice, we are in a better position to appreciate justice as a broader concept rather than merely a legal or economic one. This thesis will attempt to establish a connection between Miranda Fricker's epistemic injustice and J. L. Austin's speech act theory. According to Fricker, epistemic injustice is an umbrella term referring to the wrong done to an individual's capacity as a knower due to identity prejudice. This contribution by Fricker paves the way to understand justice as not just distribution of epistemic or material goods but also epistemic credibility attribution based on an individual's social identity as well as how our social position shapes our interactions with others in terms of the treatment we receive. According to Fricker, epistemic injustice has two categories being testimonial and hermeneutical injustice. Although both of them stem from systemic and structural issues that target an individual in varied aspects of their lives due to unjustly deflated credibility attribution, testimonial injustice refers to dismissed assertions whereas hermeneutical injustice refers to being unable to make sense of or make one's social experiences intelligible to others due to a gap in hermeneutical resources. The framework put forth by Fricker gives us the sense that the former type of epistemic injustice is a linguistic/epistemic phenomenon whereas the latter seems to be a conceptual issue. For this reason, there have been attempts by some scholars to make a connection with different frameworks and theories in philosophy of language such as J. L. Austin's speech act theory, David Lewis's conversational scoreboard and Jennifer Hornsby, Rae Langton and David C. Spewak's silencing accounts. The second link the theoretical chain, namely Austin's speech act theory refers to the idea that each of our utterances constitutes a different sort of action. In other words, we perform certain acts with our words. According to Austin, there are three types of speech acts being locutionary acts, illocutionary acts and perlocutionary acts. In Austin's framework, locutionary acts refer to making sounds that have a sense and reference whereas illocutionary acts have a force that are performative in nature. When we perform an illocutionary act, we are doing that act in saying it. These types of acts have to have an uptake, namely being registered by the hearer, in order to be successful due to their conventional nature. Some of the categories of illocutionary acts are assertives, directives, declaratives and so forth. Since Fricker's testimonial injustice is based on assertions, only assertives are relevant in illocutionary acts for the purposes of this thesis. On the other hand, perlocutionary acts are unconventional acts that have an effect on the hearer whether done intentionally or not. This view is challenged by some scholars discussed in this thesis. These developments are significant to fully discover the nature of perlocutionary acts and how they can connect to hermeneutical injustice. Speech act theory was further developed by John Searle by extending the taxonomy of each property of speech act categories. Although Searle's extension is not relevant for the purposes of this thesis, his overall theory is significant in order to connect these speech acts to social reality as he puts forth. For Searle, illocutionary acts have a direction of fit flowing from words to the world and vice versa. Building on this, Searle argues social contract in a society is built through language, our speech acts shape our social realities. This is a useful insight to solidify the connection between hermeneutical injustice and speech acts. Although there are competing accounts on understanding speech acts in general, I take a middle ground approach between intentionalist and conventionalist accounts. Conventionalists argue that speech acts are performed to conform to linguistic and/or social conventions whereas intentionalists view speech acts as communicative intentions to provoke a response on hearers. Since we both need linguistic conventions to convey meanings while we also engage in conversations to invoke some sort of a response from our interlocutors, both accounts are crucial. Meanwhile, the phenomenon occurring when these acts fail is referred to as silencing in philosophy of language. While locutionary acts can be silenced by physically restraining someone from uttering something, illocutionary silencing, as explained by Jennifer Hornsby and Rae Langton, happens due to failure of uptake. On the other hand, perlocutionary silencing, as defined by David C. Spewak, refers to the inability of a speaker to achieve their perlocutionary goals by making the moves to influence a conversation. With all of these theoretical insights, this thesis will posit that hermeneutical injustice precedes testimonial injustice once perlocutionary silencing and the Lewisian conversational scoreboard is kept in mind. Although the connection between testimonial injustice and non-assertoric speech acts has been made by David C. Spewak, I wish to argue that the relationship between hermeneutical injustice and non-assertoric speech acts, especially perlocutionary acts, has been overlooked. While Fricker bases her theory on assertions in the cases of testimonial injustice, which are related to illocutionary acts within Austin's framework, Spewak challenges Fricker's emphasis on assertions within testimonial injustice. Therefore, while Spewak's contribution regarding the integration of non-assertoric speech acts as well as his coining of perlocutionary silencing prove useful, the link between non-assertoric speech acts and the second type of epistemic injustice, namely hermeneutical injustice, and how it can lead to silencing has not been a subject of any study as of yet. For this reason, I attempt to argue that if we take the conversational scoreboard account as proposed by David Lewis, which is an analogy that likens conversations to a game of baseball where each speaker follows the rules of the language game to shape conversational dynamics and add to the common ground, then we can see that hermeneutical injustice precedes testimonial injustice owing to the fact that speakers need common ground where they share common meanings and concepts to converse. If a speaker is unable to contribute to the meaning formation process due to identity prejudice directed at them, there occurs hermeneutical marginalisation. As Fricker argues, this hermeneutical marginalisation renders socially powerless groups, which are the subjects of this sort of marginalisation, unable to either make sense of their own experiences or make themselves intelligible to others for the gap in collective hermeneutical resources. I argue that if this is the case, then they are also unable to make the conversational moves to influence the conversation. Since conversations need a common ground and shared meanings, once there is a case of hermeneutical marginalisation resulting in hermeneutical injustice, then there is also a case of perlocutionary silencing. Seen in this way, we can see that when testimonial injustice takes place, it is not just dismissed assertions due to identity-based credibility deficit, as Fricker envisages, that cause epistemic harm. It is the lack of common ground and shared meanings due to exclusion of certain groups of interlocutors who are unable to make their voices heard due to identity prejudice against them.
-
ÖgeDevelopment as an apparatus of liberal governmental intervention: USA and Türkiye in the early cold war period(Graduate School, 2025-01-20)Government is the right disposition of things. This means not only the management of people but the administration of the complex whole of relationships between people and things. In liberal government, intervention is a necessity that is considered reasonable under certain conditions. Liberal government in the Foucauldian sense exists through the mechanisms of knowledge/power that it brings into existence through certain political rationalities. The interventionist aspect of liberal government in practice has not been limited to societies where liberal values are embedded. A new form of liberal intervention manifested itself when the free market model idealized in liberal societies and the understanding of liberal government were put forward as a model for countries marked as underdeveloped. The US-led "developmentalism" after World War II is a clear example of such an intervention. The development apparatus derived its governmental techniques from US experiences such as the "progressive era" and the "new deal". This context invites an examination of how these reports and programs are constructed and what they omit. Development programs and reports claim to improve people's lives based on scientific and technical expertise. The analysis of liberal governmentality aims to scrutinize in detail the practices of government, the tools and techniques invented for government, and the subjects affected and influenced. This "analytic" includes the history of political ideas and the genealogy of governmental technologies. Türkiye was an early beneficiary of US aid due to its geostrategic position and its willingness to join the Western bloc. The Thornburg Report (1949) and the Barker (IBRD) Report (1951) prepared during this period stand out as the texts describing how developmental reforms in line with the liberal market model should be implemented in Türkiye. These reports criticized the experience of statist industrialization in Türkiye and the weight of the state in economic activities as a source of "inefficiency". For economic development, private enterprise had to be supported, accounting and business techniques had to be rationalized, road and transportation infrastructure had to be improved, and rural areas had to be included in the market. The organization of the economic system and technological infrastructures prevented the spread of prosperity and economic profit throughout society. The development reports prepared by US experts during the early Cold War years are interventions that aim to "improve" Türkiye's economic and institutional framework with a liberal rationale. By redefining the everyday realities of peasants or factory workers with technical categories and statistical data, these interventions impose a set of recommendations and obligations on how they "should live". However, all these attempts at regulation are limited both by unpredictable socio-economic processes at the local level and by the political objections of different actors who remain outside the development discourse or resist it. Therefore, rather than the success or failure story of "development," the thesis focuses on the question "how is it intervened, guided by what knowledge and whose authority, and within what political boundaries and conflicts?" and discusses through early Cold War development reports in Türkiye.
-
ÖgeImmigration and the rise of radical populist right parties in europe: The Resurgence of nationalism(Graduate School, 2024-10-24)Popülizm günümüz siyasetinde en çok anlamaya uğraştığımız kavramlardan biridir. İnsan yaşamının varlığından beri süregelen göç olgusu bugün Avrupa'da Sağ Popülist siyaset çatısı altında bir sorun olarak ifade edilmektedir. Göçün bir sorun olarak ifade edilmesi milliyetçiliğin yükselişi ile paralel olarak gösterilmektedir. Bu çalışma Avrupa'da Radikal Sağ Partilerin yükselişinin göçle olan ilişkisini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. İlk olarak kavramsal karmaşadan kurtulmak amacıyla popülist siyaset biçimi teorik olarak ele alınmaktadır. Maalesef ki günümüzde hala popülizmin ne olduğuna dair soru işaretleri devam etmektedir. Kavramın tanımının yapılmasına dair zorluklar söz konusudur. Bu yüzden de bu kavram tanımlanmaya çalışılırken rastladığımız durum genellikle siyaset bilimcilerin kavramın ortak özelliklerinden bahsetmesiyle gerçekleşir. Popülizmin tanımını gerçekleştirmek isterken karşılaştığımız çıkmazlardan birisi bu kavramı ideoloji olarak mi yoksa siyaset yapma biçimi ya da bir araç olarak mı göreceğimiz ile ilgili olmaktadır. Elbette bu noktada çok farklı görüşler mevcuttur. Özellikle de mlilliyetçilik ile popülizm benzer çatı altında tutulduğu zaman popülizmin hangi kategori altında inceleneceği önem kazanmaktadır. Şüphesiz popülizmin özellikleriden bahsederken karşımıza çıkan ve popülizmin en temel özelliği olarak gösterebileceğimiz nokta popülist siyaset biçiminin halk ve seçkinler arasında gerçekleştirdiği politik ayrımdır. Bu noktadan itibaren sağ ve sol popülizmin benzer ve farklı yönleri incelenmektedir. Sol partiler göçmenler konusunda daha ılımlı bir yaklaşıma sahipken, sağ popülizmin tam tersi bir bakışa sahip olduğu görülmektedir. Sağ popülizmde, halk ve elitler arasındaki çatışma genellikle ulusal kimlik ve kültürel anlamda korunma üzerine kurulu olmaktadır. Bu noktada ulusal kimlik ve kültürel korunma anlamında düşman olarak gördükleri göçmenler üzerinden siyasal faaliyetlerini yürütmektedirler. Sağ ve sol popülizmin üzerindeki ortak ve farklı yönleri değerlendirirken dikkat etmemiz gereken nokta bu kavramın bölgesel olarak da farklılık taşıyan bir özelliğe sahip olmasıdır. Günümüzde, özellikle Avrupa'da sağ popülizm genellikle göç ve milliyetçilikle ilişkilendirilir. İnsanlık tarihinin başlangıcından itibaren devam eden göç olgusu, günümüzde Avrupa siyasetinde en çok tartışılan ve sorun olarak dile getirilen meselelerden biri haline gelmiştir. Bu sorun, büyük ölçüde sağ popülist siyasetin içinde şekillenmekte ve özellikle milliyetçiliğin yükselmesiyle paralel bir biçimde karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Çalışmamda Avrupa'daki radikal sağ partilerin yükselişinin göçle ilişkisini ve bu yükselişin milliyetçilikle nasıl iç içe geçtiğini incelemeyi amaçlıyoruz. Dolayısıyla popülizmin kavramının ne olduğu üzerine düşünmek kadar milliyeçilik ideolojisinin ne ifade ettiğini de anlamaya çalışmalıyız. Çünkü siyaset arenasında her kavramda ve ideolojide olduğu gibi net ve keskin ifadelere yer vermek zaman zaman zor olabilmektedir. Milliyetçilik de popülizm gibi zaman ve toplumsal bağlama dayalı olarak içeriği farklılaşan bir ideolojidir. Bu kavramların esnek bir yapıya sahip oluşları neticesinde popülizm ve milliyetçilik arasındaki ilişikiyi çözümleyebilmemiz zorlaşmaktadır. Bir ideoloji olarak milliyetçiliğin popülizm olgusu ile hangi anlamda örtüştüğü sorgulanmaktadır. Her ne kadar popülizm kadar bukalemun bir yapıya sahip olmasına rağmen milliyetçiliğn tanımlarından bahsetmek daha mümkün olmaktadır. Özellikle, popülizmle milliyetçilik arasındaki örtüşen noktaların araştırılması, her iki ideolojinin halk ile elitler arasındaki ilişkiyi nasıl tanımladığını anlamak açısından kritik bir rol oynamaktadır. Popülizm, halkın egemenliğini savunarak elitlere karşı bir meydan okuma gerçekleştirmektedir. Milliyetçilik de halkı (genellikle bir ulus ya da etnik gruptan bahsetmek mümkündür) savunma iddiasıyla belirli bir ulusal kimlik ve egemenlik fikrini vurgular. Ancak, bu noktada milliyetçilik ve popülizm aynı şey midir, yoksa bugün yeni bir milliyetçilik anlayışı mı ortaya çıkmıştır? sorusu, hem teoride hem de pratikte siyasal düzeni anlayabilmemiz açısından önemlidir. Bu sorunun yanıtını aramak bu iki kavramın hem örtüştüğü hem de ayrıştığı noktaları daha iyi anlamamıza olanak sağlayacaktır. Her ikisinde de halkı savunmak adına benzer bir söylem geliştirmesine rağmen bunların taşıdığı anlamlar ve hedefler yer yer değişmektedir. Bu nedenle, popülizm ile milliyetçilik arasındaki ilişkiyi araştırmak, yalnızca siyasal stratejileri anlamak için değil, aynı zamanda günümüz siyasetinin evrimini kavrayabilmek için de önemlidir. Ne yazık ki popülizmin ve milliyetçiliğin aynı anılması popülist siyasetinin özgüllüğünün kaybolmasına neden olmaktadır. Öyle ki bugün milliyetçiliğin yükselişi olarak tarif edilen durum aslında çok farklıdır. Özellikle Avrupa'da sağ partiler ile ilişkilendirilen milliyetçilik, ulus devleti kuran milliyetçilik kavramından çok daha başka bir noktadır. Milliyetçilik ve popülizm arasındaki ilişkiyi anlamadan, günümüz sağ popülist siyaseti tam olarak kavranamaz. Milliyetçilik, özellikle ulus-devletin inşası ve kimlik politikaları ile ilişkilendirilirken, günümüz sağ popülist hareketlerinde milliyetçilik çok daha farklı bir yönelim taşımaktadır. Bugün, milliyetçilik, ulusal kimliği ve kültürel değerleri savunma adına etnik bir ayrımcılıkla harmanlanmış bir formda ifade bulmaktadır. Popülizm ve milliyetçilik arasındaki bu örtüşme, özellikle Avrupa'da popülist hareketlerin güç kazanmasının temel sebeplerindendir. Dolayısıyla bugün Avrupa'da popülist sağ siyaseti anlamak için popülist milliyetçilik ve etnomilliyetçilik gibi kavramlar açığa çıkmıştır. Popülist siyaseti ve milliyetçilik ideolojisini birleştilmesi ile ortaya çıkan bu kavramlar aracılığıyla Avrupa'nın siyaset tarzı anlaşılmaya çalışılmaktadır. Nihayetinde popülizmin bukalemin doğası nedeniyle aslında bu ideolojik karmaşa gerçekleşmektedir. Son olarak göç kavramına odaklanılıp Avrupa'daki göç hareketleri ve sağ partilerin göçmenlere yönelik politikaları incelenmektedir. Göçmenlerin ülkelerine hem ekonomik hem de toplumsal zarar verdiğine yönelik algıya sahip olan Avrupa seçmeninin düşüncesini etkileyen faktörlere odaklanılmaktadır. Avrupa'da yapılan araştırmalar göstermektedir ki Avrupa ülkelerine gelen göçmenlerin hepsi aynı statüye konulmaktadır. Avrupa Birliği'nin göçmen konusunda eleştirilere maruz kalmasına rağmen araştırmalar göstermektedir ki mülteci ve düzensiz göçmen konusunda bir abartı söz konusudur. Çalışmamda beş farklı Avrupa ülkesinde (Almanya, Avusturya, Hollanda, İtalya, Fransa) yükselişe geçen sağ partilerin göçmenlere karşı olan tutumları ele alınmaktadır. Görülen odur ki beş farklı Avrupa ülkesindeki sağ partiler genellikle aynı eleştirel tavır içerisindedirler. Bu beş Avrupa ülkesindeki radikal popülist sağ partilerin göçmenlere yönelik tutumları aynı şekilde ilerlemektedir. Hepsi göçmenleri suçlu ilan eden bir bakış açısına sahiptirler. Son aşamada ise medyanın, göçmenlere olan bakış açısına etkisi ve sağ popülist siyasete ne ölçüde hizmet ettiği değerlendirilmektedir. Bugün radikal popülist sağ partilerin medya sayesinde göçmen tutumlarını değiştirebilecek güçleri vardır. Medya işbirliğinde seçmenler üzerinde algı ve tutum değiştirebilecek konular özellikle gündemde tutulmaktadır. Sonuç olarak popülizm, milliyetçilik ile işbirliği içerisinde olan fakat eş değer tutulamayacak bir siyaset yapma biçimidir. Popülizm, milliyetçilik ideolojisinin özelliklerini ödünç almakla birlikte ona dönüşmemektedir. Göç Avrupa'da yeni gerçekleşen bir olay değil, insanlık tarihinden itibaren sürekli devam eden bir süreçtir. Bugün düzensiz göç ve mülteci krizi adı altında ile daha fazla yankı bulan göç konusunun medyanın da dahil edilmesi ile birlikte Avrupa'da yükselişe geçen sağ popülist siyasetin milliyetçilikten öteye geçen göçmenlere yönelik bir algı ve tutum içerisinde olduğu sonucuna varılmaktadır. Avrupa'daki sağ popülist partilerin yükselmesinin, göçmenler üzerindeki olumsuz algılarla doğrudan ilişkili olduğunu vurgulamaktadır. Popülizm, milliyetçilik ve göç arasındaki etkileşimler, Avrupa'da politikaların şekillenmesinde belirleyici bir rol oynamaktadır. Medyanın, bu ideolojik ve toplumsal süreçlerdeki etkisi, popülist siyasetin gücünü pekiştiren önemli bir faktör olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır.
-
ÖgeHow to understand sovereignty through the prism of cosmopolitan morality(Graduate School, 2024-11-18)Human history is shaped by complex dynamics influenced by major transformations and divisions. These dynamics have continuously altered political, economic, and cultural structures, guiding the evolution of social organizations. Throughout history, humanity has formed various political and social units in response to changing needs, and these units have undergone transformations based on social, cultural, and moral developments. Tribes, religious communities, trade unions, political parties, and states represent historical examples of social groups, each with its own rules, structures, and definitions. To understand the concept of sovereignty, it is essential to explore its philosophical trajectory and evolution. Sovereignty is traditionally defined as the state's authority to exercise its will independently within its borders, free from external interference. However, globalization, social inequalities, environmental disasters, pandemics, and wars have necessitated a reevaluation of sovereignty. While modern states maintain their independence within national borders, these global challenges require increased international cooperation and collective solutions. Therefore, the concept of sovereignty must be reconsidered in light of current global conditions. From a global perspective, sovereignty is no longer confined to internal matters of states but has become a shared issue for individuals and the international community. This paper examines how sovereignty can be reinterpreted in a global context and its implications for social and political structures. It is based on the assumption that the traditional notion of sovereignty is inadequate and that new institutional and political approaches are required. Sovereignty, especially with the Peace of Westphalia and the revolutions of the 18th century, has been grounded in the nation-state system. Today, it emphasizes the right of states to maintain independence within their borders and to be protected from external interference. While this principle has underpinned nationalism and nation-state politics, global developments since the 20th century have shown that sovereignty cannot be limited to internal issues. The process of globalization, increasing international trade, the rapid flow of information, environmental crises, and human rights violations require a reassessment of state sovereignty. Many modern issues are transnational, prompting a shift towards international collaboration and a more collective, global approach to sovereignty. Cosmopolitan morality, which advocate for the universal rights and equality of all humans, should extend into political theory as cosmopolitan sovereignty. This idea moves beyond the sovereignty of nation-states, proposing a global political union centered on individual rights and freedoms. In this view, human rights violations should be seen as a global issue, not just a domestic one. This requires a sense of responsibility beyond national borders and emphasizes international solidarity. Today's global challenges, such as climate change, pandemics, armed conflicts, and poverty, cannot be addressed within the confines of nation-states alone. Cosmopolitan sovereignty suggests that solving such issues requires international cooperation, with states acting together based on shared values. The implementation of cosmopolitan sovereignty, however, is a difficult process, as it involves balancing national sovereignty with global justice and equality. States must adopt a collective approach to global issues while still safeguarding national interests. Human rights, as a fundamental aspect of cosmopolitan sovereignty, are not limited to the internal affairs of nation-states but are universal rights for all humanity. The protection of these rights is a global responsibility, as human rights violations have increasingly become a global issue. For example, environmental disasters, such as climate change, affect not only local or national populations but pose a global threat. The actions of countries emitting the most carbon affect vulnerable regions and exacerbate global inequalities. This environmental injustice calls for the need for environmental justice and the protection of human rights. Global problems, such as the refugee crisis, wars, and ethnic cleansing, also transcend national boundaries. These issues demand international cooperation and solidarity, as they affect entire regions or the global community. The Covid-19 pandemic, for instance, demonstrated how a health crisis could quickly spread across borders, affecting social, economic, and cultural connections globally. These challenges require collective action based on shared moral values, as they are no longer the sole concern of individual nations but of the entire international community. Cosmopolitan sovereignty thus challenges the traditional notion of sovereignty based on nation-states, advocating for a global perspective. It calls for a normative framework that transcends national borders, urging the international community to collaborate on global issues, including human rights, environmental protection, and global peace. Sovereignty, from this cosmopolitan standpoint, is not merely a theoretical concept but a practical responsibility that requires global cooperation. International solidarity and cooperation are essential for addressing global challenges and ensuring justice, equality, and sustainability. The inadequacy of the current definition of sovereignty arises from its reliance on a geopolitical understanding rooted in the concept of the nation-state. Instead, sovereignty should be defined through a perspective of power that is based on cosmopolitan morality and requires all individuals to act as part of a global and environmental community, encompassing a set of principles that draw from both utilitarian and deontological approaches. The concept of national sovereignty is inherently contradictory. This constitutes a two-level problem: one at the ideal level, and the other in practical terms. In practice, this concept needs to be criticized, as it contradicts the necessity for equal consideration of interests. In this context, institutionalization is essential. There is a need to focus on the concerns about the pressures that power can create and to build a critical mindset. It is necessary to argue for a critical public space in order to ensure secure cosmopolitan institutionalization and reduce the risk of corruption. Furthermore, if institutionalization is to occur, it is crucial to develop a framework of thought that examines the behavior of these institutions in a holistic manner. If cosmopolitan morality are grounded in a foundation that does not include a critical mindset, they could turn into a source of oppression. Therefore, a critical mindset is required; otherwise, there is a risk of a shift from cosmopolitanism to particularism. In conclusion, the fight against global problems requires moving beyond the traditional understanding of sovereignty and adopting a broader humanitarian perspective. The principles of human rights, equality, and environmental protection are global responsibilities. Therefore, every individual and state must contribute to this responsibility and act toward common global goals. Cosmopolitan sovereignty extends beyond national borders to encompass the entire global community. This approach necessitates a new normative framework, a shared ethical system, and international cooperation to address global crises. In this context, cosmopolitan sovereignty is not only a moral stance but also a practical necessity for safeguarding human rights, protecting the environment, and establishing global peace.
-
ÖgeWhat justifies liberal education in John Stuart Mill's theory of freedom?(Graduate School, 2024-01-31)John Stuart Mill is among the prominent names of the classical liberalism movement and utilitarian ethics. He argues that freedom is the natural right of man and the source of development, therefore it cannot be limited by the state. For this reason, individualist readings of Mill are very common. However, the social interpretation of Mill is also possible. Therefore, it is necessary to look at Mill's work on liberal education since it has bold references to social development as well as individual progress. Mill uses the term liberal education in his speech at the University of St. Andrew and he explains the qualities of such an education. Since there is not a single agreement on what liberal education is there have been varied roles attributed to it. While it is considered to be the national training of citizens. It is also referenced as a marketplace to make a profit in the economic perspective of contemporary times. It used to be an aristocratic education for high classes during the Middle Ages. However, in the Enlightenment period, classical liberal tradition offered a new perspective and as one of the key figures in this period, J.S. Mill argues that man is free, and the existence of the abilities given to him from birth is proof that he is expected to use them freely. However, education, how people establish and develop the greatest civilization, ignores this nature of people. It makes them unable to use their innate abilities, let alone use them. Hence, education impedes both individual and social development. Mill explained the qualities of liberal education in his speech at the University of St. Andrew. According to Mill liberal education should recognize individual freedom because this will ensure individual development. An education that ensures individual freedom doesn't restrict people's interests, indeed should offer them options in line with their tastes and capacities. For this reason, the curriculum should be scientific, artistic, literary as well as philosophic. However, individuals' development should not be separated from the principle of freedom, therefore it is also important to create a society that embraces this principle. In other words, the purpose of liberal education is to ensure both individual and social development by protecting individual freedoms. Liberal education is a means to creating this structure without losing the individual will.