“Sularda yaşamak için yaratılmış gibi”: William Shakepeare’in Hamlet adlı oyununda Ophelia’nın ölümüne maddeci feminist bir yaklaşım

Öz

Bu makalenin amacı, William Shakespeare’in ünlü oyunu Hamlet'te, maddeyi, özellikle insan bedeninin ve doğanın maddeselliğini, maddeci feminist teori ve uygulamalar bağlamında ön plana çıkarmaktır. Kavramsal çerçevesine maddeci feminist teorinin rehberlik ettiği bu makale, Ophelia’nın Hamlet’teki maddesel dünyayla iç içe geçmesinin, kültür/doğa, erkek/kadın ve insan/insan olmayan dahil olmak üzere daha birçok ikilikçi sınıflandırmanın yeniden ele alınmasına ilişkin yeni anlayışlar sunmasını inceler. Bu bağlamda, maddeci feminizmin “bedenler arası geçişkenlik,” “kırınım aparatı,” ve “şeylerin kapasitesi” kavramlarına dayanan bu makale, bedenlerin maddeselliğini aktif bir güç olarak ele alır. Böylece, Shakespeare’in Ophelia’nın ölümüne ilişkin geleneksel temsiline eleştirel bir bakış açısı geliştirir. Bu makale, Hamlet’te Ophelia ve doğal dünyanın iç içe geçmesine odaklanarak, Ophelia’nın boğulma sahnesinde suyla iç içe geçmesinin yeniden kavramsallaştırılmasının maddeci feminist teori bağlamında, ikilikçi sınıflandırmalar arasında akışkanlık, hareketlilik, ve dinamizm duygusu sunabileceğini öne sürer.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Maddeci feminizm
• kadın
• doğa
• beden
• Hamlet
• William Shakespeare.

“Native and indued Unto that element”: A material feminist approach to Ophelia’s death in William Shakespeare’s Hamlet

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to bring the material, specifically the materiality of the human body and the natural world, to the forefront within the context of material feminist theory and practices in William Shakespeare’s renowned play Hamlet. Drawing on material feminist literary criticism as the principle guiding paradigm, this paper explores the manner in which Ophelia’s entanglement with the material world in Hamlet offers fresh insights into the reconsideration of many dichotomous categorizations, including culture/nature, man/woman, and human/nonhuman. In this regard, this paper, which draws mainly upon material feminisms’ notions of “trans-corporeality,” “diffraction apparatus,” and “thing power,” considers the materiality of the bodies an active force, Thus, this paper provides a critical perspective on Shakespeare’s conventional representation of Ophelia’s death. By paying particular attention to Ophelia’s entanglement with the natural world in Hamlet, this paper indicates that the reconceptualization of Ophelia’s entanglement with water in her drowning scene within the context of material feminist theory can offer a sense of fluidity, mobility, and dynamism between dichotomous categorizations.

Keywords

• Material feminisms
• woman
• nature
• body
• Hamlet
• William Shakespeare

References

1. Ağın Dönmez, B. (2015). Posthuman Ecologies in Twenty-First Century Short Animations. PhD. Diss. Hacettepe University: Ankara.
2. Alaimo, S. (2000). Undomesticated Ground: Recasting Nature as Feminist Space. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
3. Alaimo, S., Hekman, S., (Eds.). (2008). Material Feminisms. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
4. Alaimo, S. (2010). Bodily Natures: Science, Environment, and the Material Self. Indiana: Indiana University Press.
5. Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28 (3), 801- 831.
6. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.
7. Barad, K. (2008). Living in a Posthumanist Material World: Lessons from Schrödinger’s Cat. In Anne Smelik and Nina Lykke, (Eds.), Bits of Life: Feminism at the Intersections of Media, Bioscience, and Technology (pp. 165-176). Seattle: University of Washington Press.
8. Coole, D., Frost, S. (2010). Introducing the New Materialisms. In Diana Coole and Samantha Frost, (Eds.), New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics (pp. 1-43). Durham: Duke University Press.

9. Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham: Duke University Press.
10. Davies, B. (2000). Inscribing Body/Landscape Relations. New York: Altamira Press.
11. Gaard, G. (1993). Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
12. Hames-Garcia, M. (2008). How Real Is Race. In Stacy Alaimo and Susan Hekman, (Eds.), Material Feminisms (pp. 308-339). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
13. Haraway, D. J. (1991). Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge.
14. Hekman, S. (2010). The Material Knowledge: Feminist Disclosures. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
15. Iovino, S. (2018). (Material) Ecocriticism. In Rosi Braidotti and Maria Hlavajova, (Eds.), Posthuman Glossary, (pp. 112-115). London: Bloomsbury.
16. Jenkins, H. (Ed.) (1982). Hamlet. New York: Routledge.
17. Kirby, V., Wilson, E.A. (2011). Feminist Conversations with Vicki Kirby and Elizabeth A. Wilson. Feminist Theory 12, 227-234.
18. Kordecki, L. (2018). “'Like a creature native': Ophelia's Death and Ecofeminism.” In Douglas A. Vakoch and Sam Mickey (Eds.), Literature and Ecofeminism: Intersectional and International Voices, (pp. 9-24). Routledge.
19. Laroche, R. (2011). Behind Home Remedy: Women, Medicine, and Science. Folger Shakespeare Exhibition.
20. Latour, B. (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
21. Lehman, J. (2016). A Sea of Potential: The Politics of Global Ocean Observations. Political Geography, 55, 113–123.
22. Lemke, T. (2017). Mater and Matter: A Prelimary Cartography of Material Feminisms. Soft Power 5(1), 83-99.
23. Lyons, B. G. (1977). The Iconography of Ophelia. ELH 44(1), 60-74.
24. MacLure, M. (2015). The ‘New Materialisms’: A Thorn in the Flesh of Critical Qualitative Inquiry? In G. Cannella, M. Perez, and P. Pasque, (Eds.), Critical Qualitative Inquiry: Foundations and Futures, (pp.93-112). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
25. McAlindon, T. (1996). Shakespeare’s Tragic Cosmos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26. Merchant, C. (1980). The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
27. Oppermann, S. (2019). Storied Seas and Living Metaphors in the Blue Humanities. Configurations, 27(4), 443-461.
28. Past, E. (2016). Mediterranean Ecocriticism: The Sea in the Middle. In Hubert Zapf, (Ed.), Handbook of Ecocriticism and Cultural Ecology, (pp. 368-384). Berlin: De Gruyter.
29. Plumwood, V. (1993). Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. New York: Routledge.
30. Ronk, M. C. (2015). Representations of ‘Ophelia.’ Criticism 36(1), 21-43.
31. Shakespeare, W. (2003). Hamlet. Burton Raffel, (Ed.). New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
32. Shiva, V. (2010). Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development. Cambridge: South End Press.
33. Showalter, E. (1994). Representing Ophelia: Women, Madness, and the Responsibilities of Feminist Criticism. In Patricia Parker and Geoffrey Hartman, (Eds.), Shakespeare and Question of Theory (pp. 77-94). New York: Methuen.
34. Taylor, C. A., Ivinson, G. (2013). Material Feminisms: New Directions for Education. Gender and Education, 25(6), 665-670.
35. Tuana, N. (2008). Viscous Porosity: Witnessing Katrina. In Stacy Alaimo and Susan Hekman, (Eds.), Material Feminisms (pp. 188-213). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
36. Warren, K. (2000). Ecofeminist Philosophy: A Western Perspective on What It Is and Why It Matters. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.