TOPLUM BELLEK BAĞLAMINDA “HATIRLAMA VE UNUTMA”NIN MEKÂNLA İLİŞKİSİ VE ANTAGONİST BELLEK İNŞASI

Abstract

It is clear that throughout the history of mankind, power struggles have been waged and consolidated over the domination of land and/or space. However, in the context of technological determinism, it can be said that the power struggle for the seizure of space has evolved in parallel with the transformation of processes and determinants. This is because, again, actual domination over (and/or occupation of) a physical space has given way to symbolic occupations of spaces and to the tradition of waging battles for might and power in a more abstract fashion. The principal element of abstract occupation and domination struggles is memory. “Memory,” which is defined as the ability to consciously keep in mind the subjects experienced or learned and their historical context, is indisputably the power that determines what we do and say and that determines and dominates the processes of remembering and forgetting, as long as no opposition exists or is created that could cause hesitation in strict acceptance. There is bound to be a relationship between space and memory for the reason mentioned above. This study aimed to examine the antagonistic construction of social memory in light of basic theories. To this end, focus was placed first on memory and social memory, and the related concepts were defined. Then, the nature of memory specific to the practices of remembering and forgetting was examined under the guidance of approaches to protagonist and antagonist memory, and an attempt was made to present the subject’s relationship with space from different perspectives. As a result, this study revealed that memory can never be considered as an individual forgetting/preservation device, and that its antagonistic dimension stems from the “uncompromising conflict of remembering and forgetting that it contains.”

Keywords

• bellek
• mekan
• toplumsal bellek
• antagonist bellek
• hatırlama-unutma

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLACE AND “REMEMBERING AND FORGETTING” AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANTAGONISTIC MEMORY IN THE CONTEXT OF SOCIAL MEMORY

Abstract

It is clear that throughout the history of mankind, power struggles have been waged and consolidated over the domination of land and/or space. However, in the context of technological determinism, it can be said that the power struggle for the seizure of space has evolved in parallel with the transformation of processes and determinants. This is because, again, actual domination over (and/or occupation of) a physical space has given way to symbolic occupations of spaces and to the tradition of waging battles for might and power in a more abstract fashion. The principal element of abstract occupation and domination struggles is memory. “Memory,” which is defined as the ability to consciously keep in mind the subjects experienced or learned and their historical context, is indisputably the power that determines what we do and say and that determines and dominates the processes of remembering and forgetting, as long as no opposition exists or is created that could cause hesitation in strict acceptance. There is bound to be a relationship between space and memory for the reason mentioned above. This study aimed to examine the antagonistic construction of social memory in light of basic theories. To this end, focus was placed first on memory and social memory, and the related concepts were defined. Then, the nature of memory specific to the practices of remembering and forgetting was examined under the guidance of approaches to protagonist and antagonist memory, and an attempt was made to present the subject’s relationship with space from different perspectives. As a result, this study revealed that memory can never be considered as an individual forgetting/preservation device, and that its antagonistic dimension stems from the “uncompromising conflict of remembering and forgetting that it contains.”

Keywords

• memory
• space
• social memory
• antagonistic memory
• Remembering-Forgetting

References

1. Bell, P. F., Cleaver, H., (2002). https://sok.bz/content/3-clanky/7-2013/20131002-peter-bell-a-harry-cleaver-marxova-teorie-krize-jako-teorie-tridniho-boje/cleaver.pdf. Erişim Tarihi: 12.10.2021.
2. Buhr, M. and Kosing, A., (1976). Marxist Leninist Dictionary of Philosophy, Translation Engin Aşkın, Konuk Publications.
3. Çankı, Mustafa Namık, (1954). Büyük Felsefe Lûgatı Cilt I, Cumhuriyet Press.
4. Demir, Ö. ve Acar, M., (1996). Sosyal Bilimler Sözlüğü, Vadi Publications.
5. Dündar, Berk İlke, (2016). “Antagonistik Ekolojizm”, Postgraduate Thesis, Ankara University.
6. Göle, Münir, (2007). “Doğru Olmadığını Biliyorum Ama Öyle Hatırlıyorum.”, Bellek: Öncesiz, Sonrasız, Cogito Sayı 50: 23-30.
7. İlhan, M. Emir, (2015). “Gelenek ve Hatırlama: Belleğin Kültürel Olarak Yeniden İnşası Üzerine Bir Tartışma”, Turkish Studies Volume 10/8: 1395-1408.
8. Kaya Erdem, Burcu, (2019). Batı Metafiziğinden Postmodernizme “Öteki”nin Kökleri, Eğitim Publishing House.

9. Kundakçı, Deniz, (2014). “Pragmatist ve Post-Marksist Demokratik Siyaset Anlayışları: Rorty ve Laclau-Mouffe Örneği” Doctorate thesis, Ankara University.
10. Küçükalp, Kasım, (2008). Batı Metafizğinin Dekonstrüksiyonu Heidegger ve Derrida, Sentez Publications.
11. Laclau, E. ve Mouffe, C., (1992). Hegemonya ve Sosyalist Strateji, Translators Ahmet Kardam ve Doğan Şahiner, Birikim Publications.
12. Mouffe, Chantal, (2015). Siyasal Üzerine, Translator Mehmet Ratip, İletişim Publications.
13. Mutlu, Erol, (1998). İletişim Sözlüğü, Ark Publications.
14. Önder, Alev, (2017). “Bir Ada Hikâyesi’nde Tarih, Kimlik, Bellek, Yeni Türk Edebiyatı Araştırmaları” http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.14047 Erişim Tarihi: 10.11.2021
15. Schmitt, Cari, (2012). Siyasal Kavramı, Translator T. Ece Göztepe, Metis Publications.
16. Yelsalı Parmaksız, Pınar M., (2019). “Belleğin Mekânından Mekânın Belleğine: Kavramsal Bir Tartışma”, İlef dergisi, 6(1) : 7-26.