Dikotomiden simbiyotiğe: nasıl direnilmektedir?
Yükleniyor...
Dosyalar
Tarih
2015
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Mülkiye Dergisi
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
ÖZET: Foucault’un iktidar analitiği ve direnme anlayışı o hayattayken de, sonrasında da birçok eleştiriye muhatap olur. Eleştirilerin ana izleği Foucault’un nihilizmi ve mevcut düzene alternatif getirmediği üzerinde yoğunlaşır. Bu eleştirilere yanıt geliştirme çabasına girişmeksizin, ilkin Foucault teorisinde “direnme” nosyonunu ve muhalif politik-etik pratikler açısından ürettiği yorum alanını incelemek gerekir. Ki bu da kaçınılmaz olarak Nietzsche felsefesine bağlanmaktadır. Foucault’da iktidarı yönetim modeli bağlamındaki tanımıyla düşünürsek, iktidar eylemi, başkalarının eylemleri üzerinde eylemde bulunma kipi ise; direnme eylemi de o “başkalarının” özeylemlilikteki ısrar ve yaratıcılık gücü, bazı durumlarda yönetme kipliğine karşı durma, yönetilemezlik bölgeleri oluşturma ya da bazı durumlarda o eylemi dönüştürme ya da devralma adına geliştirilmiş her tür dinamizmdir diyebiliriz. Biraz daha ötede, Foucault’a göre direniş, iktidar ilişkisi dinamiğinin anahtar kavramıdır, eğer direniş olmasa iktidar ilişkileri de olmazdı. Bundan, direnmelerin, Foucault teorisindeki kurucu rolü dolayısıyla iktidarın türevi ya da eklentisine dönüştürülemeyeceği anlamı çıkar. Direnmelerin iktidara dışsal olmayışından, yani iktidar-direniş iç içeliğinden bazı kuramsal sonuçlara ulaşılır. Bu sonuçlardan en önemlisi, iktidar ve direnme güçlerinin iç içe geçmişliğinin, iktidar ve direnme arasında simbiyotik bir ilişki inşa ettiğidir ve bu ilişkide karşılıklı etkileşim, birbirini dönüştürme, sürece aktif müdahale her zaman mümkündür. İktidar-direniş içiçeliğine dair kuramsal tespitler kaçınılmaz olarak “Nasıl Direnilmektedir?” sorusuna bağlanacaktır. “İktidar-karşı-iktidar döngüselliğine düşmeyecek, iktidar güçleri ile simetrik bir düzleme yerleştirilemeyecek, asimetrik bir direnme mümkün müdür ya da nasıl mümkündür” sorusunun olası yanıtları direnmelerin güncel örnekleri ve ortaklaşan özellikleri üzerinden irdelenmelidir. Adorno ve Horkheimer’ın Odysseus örneğinde hukuki sözleşme tipi olarak analiz ettiği anlatı, bir kez de direnmenin karşı-iktidara dönüşme eğilimi/kapasitesi açısından incelenecektir. Günümüzde sınıf mücadelesine ya da ulusal kurtuluş mücadelelerinin yekpareliğine indirgenemeyecek çokluk ve yaygınlıkta direnme hareketlerinin varoluşu söz konusu: Feministler, LGBT hareketleri, çocuklar ya da engellilerin maruz kaldıkları türden ayrımcılık tiplerine karşı mücadeleler, ekoloji hareketleri, etnik-dinsel-mezhepsel yapıların kültürel ve kolektif hak mücadeleleri, eğitim, sağlık ve adalet sistemini kökten sorgulayan düşünce hareketleri, sınır-ötesi mücadele kuruluşları ve daha pek çoğu. Bu mücadelelerin eski tip savaşımlardan farklılaşan ortak özellikleri nelerdir? Bu mücadelelerin iktidardan talep etme oyunuyla kurdukları yeni ilişki; merkezsiz ve sınır-aşırı karakterleri; en yakın iktidar odağını hedef almaları; iktidar etkilerini ve bilgiiktidar eklemlenmesini sorgulamaları; yönetme ve yönetilme meselesine yaklaşımları; direnişler içerisinde yaşam ve birey konumlarının sorgulanması… Yazı içerisinde analiz edilen temel özellikler bunlardır. Yeni mücadele ve isyan tiplerinin bu ve benzeri özellikleri Gezi, Tahrir, Rojava gibi örnekler dâhilinde ve toplumsallık içerisinde değerlendirilecektir.
ABSTRACT: Foucault’s analysis of power and understanding of resistance were criticized both when he was alive and after his death. The main framework of the criticisms is built upon Foucault’s nihilism and the assertion that he offered no alternatives to the existing order. Without seeking to come up with answers to such criticisms, what needs to be done is to analyse the notion of “resistance” in Foucault’s theory and the sphere of interpretation produced by him in relation with oppositionary political and ethical practices, which is inevitably tied to the philosophy of Nietzsche. Considering the power in Foucault within the framework of governmentality, if the action of power is the mode of acting on the actions of others, then the action of resistance is the insistence on self-agency and creativeness of those “others”, standing against the mode of government in some cases, establishment of non-governable spaces or any sort of dynamism developed with the aim of transforming or taking over such actions. Furthermore, resistance, according to Foucault, is the key concept of the dynamics of power relations: if there was no resistance, there would not be any power relations. This means that resistances caanot be transformed into a derivative or annexation of power due to their fundamental role in Foucault’s theory. The fact that resistances are not extrinsic to power, in other words, the interdependency of power and resistance, gives way to some theoretical conclusions. The most significant of these conslusions is that the interdependency of power and resistance constructs a symbiotic relationship between power and resistance and therefore mutual interaction, transformation and active intervention in the process are always possible in this relationship. The theoretical determinations with regard to the interdependency of power and resistance inevitably raise the question of “How is Resistance Organized?” The possible answers to the questions such as “Is a mode of asymmetrical resistance which moves beyond the cyclicality of power-counterpower and which cannot be placed on a symmetrical plane with forces of power? And if yes, how is such resistance possible?” must be analysed on the basis of current examples of resistance and their common points. The narration analysed by Adorno and Horkheimer as a type of legal contract through the example of Odysseus will be analysed under the light of the tendency/ capacity of resistance to transform into a counter-power. There are multiple and varied movements of resistance today, which cannot simply be reduced to class struggles or national liberation movements: Feminists, LGBT movements, struggles against the discriminations against children or the handicapped, environmentalist movements, struggles for the cultural and collective rights of ethnic, religious and sectarian groups, movements fundamentally questioning the education, health and justice systems, transfrontier struggle agencies and many others. What are the common points of these struggles rendering them different from the traditional struggles? The new relationship established by such movements in the game of demanding from the power; their character lacking any center and moving beyond borders; their targeting of the nearest agency of power; their questioning of the impacts of power and integration of knowledge and power; their approaches to the issues of governing and being governed; the questioning of the position of their lives and individuals within the resistances... These will be the main aspects which will be analysed in the article. Such features of the new types of struggles and resistances will be evaluated in relation with movements including Gezi, Tahrir and Rojava and within the framework of community.
ABSTRACT: Foucault’s analysis of power and understanding of resistance were criticized both when he was alive and after his death. The main framework of the criticisms is built upon Foucault’s nihilism and the assertion that he offered no alternatives to the existing order. Without seeking to come up with answers to such criticisms, what needs to be done is to analyse the notion of “resistance” in Foucault’s theory and the sphere of interpretation produced by him in relation with oppositionary political and ethical practices, which is inevitably tied to the philosophy of Nietzsche. Considering the power in Foucault within the framework of governmentality, if the action of power is the mode of acting on the actions of others, then the action of resistance is the insistence on self-agency and creativeness of those “others”, standing against the mode of government in some cases, establishment of non-governable spaces or any sort of dynamism developed with the aim of transforming or taking over such actions. Furthermore, resistance, according to Foucault, is the key concept of the dynamics of power relations: if there was no resistance, there would not be any power relations. This means that resistances caanot be transformed into a derivative or annexation of power due to their fundamental role in Foucault’s theory. The fact that resistances are not extrinsic to power, in other words, the interdependency of power and resistance, gives way to some theoretical conclusions. The most significant of these conslusions is that the interdependency of power and resistance constructs a symbiotic relationship between power and resistance and therefore mutual interaction, transformation and active intervention in the process are always possible in this relationship. The theoretical determinations with regard to the interdependency of power and resistance inevitably raise the question of “How is Resistance Organized?” The possible answers to the questions such as “Is a mode of asymmetrical resistance which moves beyond the cyclicality of power-counterpower and which cannot be placed on a symmetrical plane with forces of power? And if yes, how is such resistance possible?” must be analysed on the basis of current examples of resistance and their common points. The narration analysed by Adorno and Horkheimer as a type of legal contract through the example of Odysseus will be analysed under the light of the tendency/ capacity of resistance to transform into a counter-power. There are multiple and varied movements of resistance today, which cannot simply be reduced to class struggles or national liberation movements: Feminists, LGBT movements, struggles against the discriminations against children or the handicapped, environmentalist movements, struggles for the cultural and collective rights of ethnic, religious and sectarian groups, movements fundamentally questioning the education, health and justice systems, transfrontier struggle agencies and many others. What are the common points of these struggles rendering them different from the traditional struggles? The new relationship established by such movements in the game of demanding from the power; their character lacking any center and moving beyond borders; their targeting of the nearest agency of power; their questioning of the impacts of power and integration of knowledge and power; their approaches to the issues of governing and being governed; the questioning of the position of their lives and individuals within the resistances... These will be the main aspects which will be analysed in the article. Such features of the new types of struggles and resistances will be evaluated in relation with movements including Gezi, Tahrir and Rojava and within the framework of community.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
İktidar, direniş, Foucault, mücadele, strateji, Power, resistance, struggle, strategy
Kaynak
Mülkiye Dergisi
