Kimliğim Epistemik Dönüşümü: Gecikmiş Modernitede Bilişsel Sosyolojik Kimliğin Sosyoekonomik İnşası

Abstract

Bireyi, toplumu ve insanlığı aşma konusunda muazzam mesafe alan bilişsel varlığın sosyal sermayeye dönüşen etkinliğini hesaba kattığımızda, özünde açık bir sistem olarak gelişen kişisel gerçeklik, insanlığın büyük çoğunluğu için bireysel gelişimi harekete dahi geçirmeye fırsat vermeyen kapalı bir sisteme dönüşmüştür. Bu makalede, söz konusu sosyal bilişsel dönüşümün neden ve nasıl ortaya çıktığı gecikmiş modernite bağlamında ele alındı. Ayrıca, kısıtlı mantıksal çıkarımlardan ve algısal deneyimden kaynaklı bilişsel orantısızlığın durdurulamaz bir sosyolojik etki ürettiği varsayıldı. Elbette ki birey, aynı şeyi tecrübe etse dahi, kişiselleştirilmiş yaşamı deneyimler. Bu bağlamda, liberal teorisyenlerin bireysel ekonomik kimlik ile ilgili savları kuvvetli argümanlara dayanmaktadır. Ekonomik ilişkilerin doğal seleksiyonunun dışında, günümüzdeki iktisadi yapının kimlik formunu biçimleyen şey, çoğulcu benliğe sahip her bireyin, farklı bir sosyal kimlik inşa etme istencinin, pratik hayata yansıyan uygulamalarıdır. Bu bağlamda makalede kavramsal, algısal, deneyimsel, ampirik ve mantıksal handikaplar bir tarafa, kısıtlı algısal deneyimin, gerçekliğin kipsel ve dizinsel konumunun perdelenmesine neden olduğu savunusu inşa edilmeye çalışıldı. Gecikmiş modernitede, bilişsel varyasyon ve içbaşkalaşım konusundaki evrenle entegre olma sorunsalı çok boyutlu bir incelemeye tabi tutuldu. Kişisel kimlik ve sosyoekonomik gelişme krizine yol açan bilişsel orantısızlık bilişsel sosyolojik incelemeye tabi tutuldu.

Keywords

• Bilişsellik
• Eylem
• Benlik Oluşumu
• Sosyoekonomik Kimlik
• Bilişsel Sosyolojik Kimlik
• Gecikmiş Modernite

The Epistemic Transformation of Identity: Socioeconomic Construction of Cogni-tive Sogiological Identitiy in the Delayed Modernity

Abstract

When we take into account the effectiveness of cognitive existence, which has taken tremendous strides in transcending the individual, society, and culture into social capital, personal reality, which has developed as an open system in its essence, has turned into a closed system that does not even allow individual develop-ment to be activated for the majority of humanity. In this article, the reasons why and how this social cogniti-ve transformation emerged are discussed in the context of delayed modernity. Additionally, it was assumed that cognitive disproportion resulting from limited logical inferences and perceptual experience would have an unstoppable sociological effect. Of course, the individual experiences a personalised life, even if he or she experiences the same thing. Liberal theorists' defences of individual economic identity in this context rest on solid premises. Apart from the natural selection of economic relations, what shapes the identity form of to-day's economic structure is the application of each individual's pluralistic self, the desire to have a different social identity, as reflected in practical life. Yet, apart from conceptual, perceptual, experiential, empirical, and logical handicaps, the article tried to construct the argument that limited perceptual experience causes the obscuration of the modal and indexal positions of reality. In delayed modernity, the problem of integrating with the universe on cognitive variation and internal metamorphosis has been subjected to a multidimensio-nal examination. The cognitive disproportion that led to a crisis of personal identity and socioeconomic deve-lopment was subjected to cognitive sociological scrutiny.

Keywords

• Cognition
• Action
• Self-formation
• Socioeconomic İdentity
• Cognitive Sociological İdentity
• Belated Modernity

References

1. Akerlof , G. ve Kranton, R. (2010). Identity Economics: how our identities shape our work, wages, and well-being. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
2. Benton, T. (2016). Sosyolojinin Felsefi Kökenleri (2 Baskı b.). (Ü. Tatlıcan, Çev.) İstanbul: Küre.
3. Bourdieu, P. (1990). Structures, habitus, practices. P. Bourdieu içinde, The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity.
4. Bourdieu, P. (1993). The Logic of Practice. (R. Nice, Çev.) California: Stanford University Press.
5. Bourdieu, P. (2005). The Social Structures of the Economy. (C. Turner, Çev.) Cambridge: Polity Press.
6. Burke, C. (2016). Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice. C. Burke, J. Thatcher, N. İngram, C. Burke ve J. Abrahams (Dü) içinde, Bourdieu: The Next Generation (s. 8-25). London, New York: Routledge.
7. Cicourel, A. V. (1964). Method and Measurement in Sociology. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
8. Cicourel, A. V. (1974). Cognitive sociology: Language and meaning in social interaction. New York: Free Press.

9. Davis, J. B. (2011). Individuals and İdentity in Economics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
10. DiMaggio, P. (1997, 08 15). Culture and Cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, s. 263-287. 12 25, 2020 tarihinde : http://www.jstor.org/stable/2952552 adresinden alındı
11. Fuller, S., De Mey, M., Shinn, T. ve Woolgar, S. (1989). The Cognitive Turn: Sociological and Psychological Perspectives on Science. Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media.
12. Gabor , F. ve Sarvary, M. (2006). Cultural Evolution in a Population of Heterogeneous Agents. T. K. Akira Namatame ve Y. Aruka (Dü.) içinde, The Complex Networks of Economics İnteractions (s. 193). Berlin: Springer.
13. Habermas, J. (2008). Between Naturalism and Religion. (C. Cronin, Çev.) Cambridge: Polity Press.
14. Held, K. (2003). Husserl's Phenomenologi Method. D. Welton içinde, The New Husser' A Critical Reader (s. 3-32). Bloomington, USA: Indiana University Press.
15. Lawson, T. (1997). Economics and Reality. London- New York: Routledge.
16. Lawson, T. (2012). Reorienting Economics. London- New York: Routledge.
17. Lemert , C. ve Branaman, A. (1997). The Production of Self. C. Lemert ve A. Branaman içinde, The Goffman Reader (s. 1-43). Massachusetts: Blackwell.
18. Lohmar, D. (2003). Husserl’s Type and Kant’s Schemata. D. Welton içinde, The New Husserl, A Critical Reader (J. J. Zavota, Çev., s. 93-125). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
19. Mead, G. H. (2015). Mind, Self and Society. (C. W. Morris, Dü.) Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
20. Mill, J. S. (1974). A System of Logic: Ratiocinative and Inductive. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
21. Noonan, H. (2020, 10 29). Personal Identity: The Simple and Complex Views Revisited. University of Nottingham. doi:10.2478/disp-2019-0001
22. Raphael, M. W. (2021, 01 16). Cognitive Sociology. doi:10.1093/obo/9780199756384-0187
23. Raz, J. (1983). The Authority Of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24. Ritzer, G. (1996). Classical Sociological Theory (Second Edition b.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
25. Sayar, A. (2017). Sosyal Bilimde Yöntem. (S. Gürses, Çev.) İstanbul: Küre Y.
26. Stanlis, P. J. (2003). Edmund Burke And The Natural Law. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
27. Stiglitz, J. ve Greenwald, B. (2014). Creating a Learning Society: A New Approach to Growth, Development, and Social Progress. New York: Columbia University Press.
28. Strauss, C. L. (1963). Structural Anthropology. New York: Basic Books İnc.
29. Stryker, S. (2007, Eylül 17). Identity Theory and Personality Theory: Mutual. 75/6. Bloomington. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 6494.2007.00468.x
30. Teubert, W. (2010). Meaning, Discourse and Society. New York: Cambridge University.
31. Walliser, B. (2008). Cognitive Economics. Berlin: Springer.
32. Winch, P. (1990). The İdea of Social Science and İts Relation to Philosophy. London, Great Briton: Routledge.
33. Woolgar, S. (1990). Representation, Cognition and Self: What Hope For An İntegration Of Psychology and Sociology? Steve Fuller Vd. içinde, The Cognitive Turn: Sociological and Psychological Perspectives on Science (s. 201-225). Dordrecht: Springer Science ,Business Media.