Deprem Sonrası Gündelik Hayat: Evsizlik Deneyimine Yönelik Fenomenolojik Bir Çalışma

Öz

Bu çalışmada, depremlerin yıkıcı etkisi sonucunda ortaya çıkan fiziksel bir mekân kaybı olarak evsizliğin gündelik hayata etkileri ele alınarak, evsizliğin fiziksel mekân yitiminin ötesinde bir arka plan yaşam biçimi olduğu iddia edilmektedir. Deprem sürecinin, deprem öncesi gündelik hayat, deprem ânı ve uzun vadeli bir etki olarak deprem sonrası şeklinde sistematize edilmesi, bu iddiayı detaylandırmaktadır. Bu paralelde, yıkıcı depremler sonrasında evsiz kalan bireylerin, deprem öncesinde de evsizlik problemi yaşadığı, bu süreçten kaynaklı bir kayıtsızlıkla deneyimi anlamlandırdığı fark edilmektedir. Araştırmada, deprem sonrası evsizlikten etkilenen ve etkilenme potansiyeli daha yüksek olan 10 katılımcı ile derinlemesine görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Katılımcıların söz konusu süreçlere ilişkin değerlendirmelerinde vurgulanan kodlamalarda; deprem olgusuna bakışları, depremden etkilenme potansiyeli ile temel gereksinim ve beklentilerinde evsizliği, arada kalma hâli olarak betimlemeleri dikkat çekmektedir. Görüşmeler sonucunda; katılımcıların, kendilerini düzenli hayat sürebilecekleri bir evlerinin olmaması ile sokakta yaşayamamaları arasında ifade etmesi arka plan yaşam biçimi iddiasını doğrulamaktadır. Katılımcılar bu şekilde evsizliği, kalıcılaşmış bir deneyim olarak anlamlandırmaktadır. Bu anlamda, deprem sonrası mekânsal hareketlilik katılımcılar için hem geçici hem de yerleşik bir yaşam deneyimine işaret etmektedir. Dolayısıyla katılımcılar için evsizlik, sokakta yaşamanın güvencesizliği ile evde olmanın konforu arasında, dışarıda olmayan, ama içeride de hissettirmeyen bir kırılganlık hâlini temsil etmiştir. Söz konusu durum, yalnızca deprem ânında hayatta kalma ve yaşam akışını sürdürme stratejisinin ötesinde uzun vâdeli bir savunmasızlık sürecine işaret etmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Deprem
• gündelik hayat
• evsizlik
• fenomenoloji.

The Post-Earthquake Daily Life: A Phenomenological Study of the Experience of Homelessness

Abstract

In this study, the effects of homelessness on daily life as a physical loss of space resulting from the devastating effects of earthquakes are discussed, and it is claimed that homelessness is a background lifestyle beyond the loss of physical space. The systematization of the earthquake process as daily life before the earthquake, the moment of the earthquake, and the post-earthquake as a long-term effect elaborates this claim. In this parallel, it is noticed that individuals who become homeless after devastating earthquakes also experienced the problem of homelessness before the earthquake and that they interpreted this experience with an indifference resulting from this process. In the study, in-depth interviews were conducted with 10 participants who were potentially affected by homelessness after the earthquake. In the codings emphasized in the evaluations of the participants regarding the processes in question; it is noteworthy that they describe homelessness as a state of being dilemma in terms of their perspectives on the earthquake phenomenon, their potential to be affected by the earthquake, and their basic needs and expectations. As a result of the interviews; the fact that the participants expressed themselves between not having a house where they could live a regular life and not being able to live on the street confirms the background lifestyle claim. In this way, the participants interpret homelessness as a permanent experience. In this sense, spatial mobility after the earthquake points to both a temporary and settled life experience for the participants. Therefore, the experience of homelessness for the participants represented a state of vulnerability that was not felt outside but was not felt inside either, between the insecurity of living on the street and the comfort of being at home. This situation pointed to a long-term process of vulnerability beyond the strategy of simply surviving and continuing the flow of life during the earthquake.

Keywords

• Earthquake
• everyday life
• homelessness
• phenomenology

References

1. Akbaş, E. (2020). Disasters and social policy. Disaster sociology, İ. Can (Ed.) (331-349). Çizgi.
2. Akçakaya, E. Y., & Him, M. S. (2020). Assessing the social networks of older people in terms of disaster risk. Senex: Journal of Aging Studies, 4, (3-16).
3. Akgüngör, Ç. (2010). Considering disasters from a sociological perspective. LAU Journal of Social Sciences, 1(1), (4-22).
4. Alexander, D. (2005). An interpretatıon of disaster in terms of changes in culture, society and internatıonal relations. What is Disaster? New Answers to Old Questıons, R. W. Perry & L. E. Qarantelli (Ed.), (25-38). Xlibris Press.
5. Alexander, D. (2010). The L’Aquila earthquake of 6 April 2009 and Italian government policy on disaster response. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, 2, (325-342).
6. Anderson, N. (2017). Hobo the sociology of the homeless man, Heretik.
7. Aydemir, M. A. (2020). Cultural situation and human experience arising in disasters: An experiential analysis of typology of disaster victim, Disaster sociology, İ. Can (Ed.), (305-328). Çizgi.
8. Bachelard, G. (2014). The poetics of the space, İthaki.

9. Bauman, Z. (1999). Work, consumerism and the new poor, Sarmal.
10. Bayat, A. (2008). Street politics poor people's movements in Iran, Phoenix.
11. Bayhan, V. (2012). The sociological context of making sense of the earthquake in a traumatic chaos environment. Sociologically, 3 (335-248).
12. Becker, H. B. (2021). Evidence, Nika.
13. Boın, A., & T’Hart, P. (2007). The crisis aproach. Handbook of disaster research, H. Rodrîguez, E. L. Quarantelli ve R. R. Dynes (Ed.), (42-54), Springer.
14. Bourdieu, P. (2015). Practical reasons on the theory of action, Hil.
15. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (2023). An invitation to reflective sociology, İletişim.
16. Can, İ. (2020). Instead of Introduction: An effort to create a field for disaster sociology. Disaster sociology, İ. Can (Ed.) (15-36). Çizgi.
17. Creswell, J. W. (2017). The research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, Eğiten Kitap.
18. Creswell, J. W. (2020). Qualitative research methods qualitative research and research design according to five approaches, Siyasal.
19. Çakı, F. (2022). Disasters and disaster victims from vulnerability perspective. The sociology of disadvantaged Groups: Inequalities, risks, and solutions, A. Demir (Ed.), (231-261). Paradigma Akademi.
20. Dahlberg, R., Rubin, O., & Vendelø, M. (2016). Disaster research an introduction, Routledge.
21. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, S. Y. (2021). Introduction qualitative research discipline and practical, Qualitative researchs guidebook, N. K. Denzin & S. Y. Lincoln (Ed.), (1-27). Vizetek.
22. Fırat, M. (2020). Earthquakes as natural and social disasters. Disaster sociology, İ. Can (Ed.), (167-186). Çizgi.
23. Fothhergill, A. (2003). The stigma of charity: Gender, class, and disaster assis. The Sociological Quarterly, 4(44), (ss.659-680). https://www.jstor.org/stable/4120727
24. Giddens, A. (2020). Consequences of modernity. Ayrıntı.
25. Karaarslan, F. (2021). Remembering a human condition or reflections on the boundaries of everyday life. Routine and wonder the pandemic as an opportunity and an exam, F. Karaarslan & S. Doğan (Ed.), (49-66). DBY.
26. Lefebvre, H. (2015). Critique of everyday life II. Sel.
27. Lefebvre, H. (2017). Rhythmanalysis space, time and everyday life. Sel.
28. Parliamentary Inquiry Commission. (2000). Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry Commission Established to Identify Measures That Can Be Taken Against Earthquakes and the Precautions Required to Minimize Earthquake Damage (No. 308).
29. Parliamentary Inquiry Commission. (2021). Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry Commission Established to Identify Measures That Can Be Taken Against Earthquakes and the Precautions Required to Minimize Earthquake Damage (No. 278).
30. Parliamentary Inquiry Commission. (2023). Report of the Parliamentary Research Commission Established to Examine All Aspects of the Consequences of the Kahramanmaraş-Centered Earthquakes, to Develop an
31. Earthquake-Resilient Building Stock, and to Identify the Measures Required to Enhance the Effectiveness of Urban Transformation Practices. https://www5.tbmm.gov.tr/develop/owa/komisyon_tutanaklari.goruntule?pTutanakId=3134
32. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2020). The phenomenology of perception. İthaki.
33. Miles, B. M., Huberman, M., & Saldana, J. (2023). Qualitative data analysis. Pegem Akademi.
34. Perry, W., R. (2007). What is a disaster? Handbook of Disaster Research, Rodriguez, H., Qarantelli, L., E., & Dynes, R., R. (Ed.), (1-15). Springer.
35. Saldana, J. (2019). A coding handbook for qualitative researchers. Pegem Akademi.
36. Tarhan, H. (2023). Qualitative and Action Research Using MAXQDA a qualitative and mixed method data analysis program. Qualitative research and action research in the social sciences: Approaches, new explorations, and applications, S. Toraman Türk (Ed.), (231-262). Pegem Akademi.
37. Toraman Türk, S. (2023). Qualitative research and action research: Which design is used when, why, and how? Qualitative research and action research in the social sciences: Approaches, new explorations, and applications, S. Toraman Türk (Ed.), (1-20). Pegem Akademi.
38. van Manen, M. (2016). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Routledge.
39. Wacquant, L. (2012). Body and soul notebooks of apprentice boxer. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi.
40. Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., & Davis, L. (2003). At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. Routledge.
41. Zakour, J. Z., & Harrell, E. B. (2008). Access to disaster services: Social work interventions for vulnarable populations. Journal of Social Service Research, 30(2), (27-54). https://doi.org/10.1300/J079v30n02