Tiyatro Oyuncuları Arasında Sınıfsal Eşitsizliğin Yeniden Üretiminde Sosyal Sermayenin Rolü

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, tiyatro oyuncularının istihdam ve kariyer süreçlerindeki sınıfsal eşitsizliğin yeniden üretilmesinde sosyal sermayenin ne şekilde rol oynadığını anlamaktır. Bu amaçla, Ankara’da bulunan ödenekli ve özel tiyatrolarda çalışmakta olan 19 tiyatro oyuncusu ile derinlemesine görüşmeler yapılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda elde edilen nitel verinin çözümlenmesiyle tiyatro oyuncuları arasında eşitsizliğin yeniden üretiminde sosyal sermayenin hangi şekillerde rol oynadığını ifade eden üç temaya ulaşılmıştır: “Aile: oyunun içine doğmak”, “aidiyetler: alana giriş biletleri” ve “piyasa ilişkileri”. Tiyatro oyuncularının mesleki kariyerlerinde asli sosyalizasyon sürecinden başlayıp tali sosyalizasyon süreçlerine dek sahip olunan sosyal ilişki ağlarının hem istihdam hem de mesleki ödüller açısından önemli roller oynadığı görülmüştür. Öte yandan günümüz yaratıcı ve kültürel endüstrilerinde hâkim olan ticarileşmenin istihdam ve kariyer süreçlerinde yarattığı belirsiz ve güvencesiz koşullar karşısında sosyal sermayenin tiyatro oyuncuları açısından öneminin daha da arttığı ortaya konulmuştur. Çalışmanın bulguları, tiyatro gibi meritokratik söylemin hâkim olduğu bir alanda sosyal sermaye aracılığıyla sosyal kapanmanın ne şekilde geliştiğini ortaya koyarak toplumsal eşitsizlik literatürüne katkı sağlamaktadır.

Keywords

• Sosyal Sermaye
• Tiyatro
• Yaratıcı ve Kültürel Endüstriler
• Sosyal Kapanma
• Sınıfsal Eşitsizlik

The Role of Social Capital in the Reproduction of Class Inequality Among Theater Actors

Abstract

This study examines how social capital plays a role in reproducing class inequalities in theatre actors' employment and career processes. Using a combination of purposive and snowball sampling, in-depth interviews were conducted with 19 theatre actors working in public and private theatres in Ankara. Three themes of how social capital contributes to the perpetuation of inequality among theatre actors emerged from the qualitative data analysis: 'family: being born into the play', 'belongings: tickets to the field', and 'market relations'. From primary to secondary socialisation processes, social networks play a crucial role in the professional careers of theatre actors, both in terms of employment and rewards. Moreover, social capital is even more important for theatre actors in the face of the uncertain and precarious conditions created by the commercialization dominating today's creative and cultural industries in employment and career processes. The study’s findings contribute to the literature on social inequality by revealing how social closure develops through social capital in a field such as theater where meritocratic discourse is dominant.

Keywords

• Social Capital
• Theatre
• Creative and Cultural Industries
• Social Closure
• Class Inequality

References

1. Abbing, H. (2002). Why are artists poor? The exceptional economy of the arts. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
2. Ada, S. (2009). Bir yeni kültür politikası için. A. İnce & S. Ada (Ed.), Türkiye'de kültür politikalarına giriş içinde (s. 81-110). İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
3. Aksoy, A. (2009). Zihinsel değişim? AKP iktidarı ve kültür politikası. A. İnce & S. Ada (Ed.), Türkiye'de kültür politikalarına giriş içinde (s. 179-198). İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
4. Alacovska, A. (2017). The gendering power of genres: How female Scandinavian crime fiction writers experience professional authorship. Organization, 24(3), 377–396. doi: 10.1177/1350508416687766.
5. Alacovska, A. & Bille, T. (2021). A heterodox re-reading of creative work: The diverse economies of Danish visual artists. Work, Employment and Society, 35(6), 1053-1072. doi: 10.1177/0950017020958328.
6. Allen, K., Quinn, J., Hollingworth, S. & Rose, A. (2013). Becoming employable students and ‘ideal’ creative workers: Exclusion and inequality in higher education work placements. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34(3), 431-452. doi: 10.1080/01425692.2012.714249.
7. Ball, S. J., Davies, J., David, M. & Reay, D. (2002). 'Classification' and 'judgement': Social class and the 'cognitive structures' of choice of higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(1), 51-72. doi: 10.1080/01425690120102854.
8. Banks, M. (2017). Creative justice: Cultural industries, work and inequality. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

9. Banks, M., Lovatt, A., O’connor, J. & Raffo, C. (2000). Risk and trust in the cultural industries. Geoforum, 31(4), 453–464. doi: 10.1016/S0016-7185(00)00008-7.
10. Bauman, Z. (2017). Akışkan modernite. (S. O. Çavuş, Çev.). İstanbul: Can Yayınları.
11. Becker, H. S. (2013). Sanat dünyaları. (E. Yılmaz, Çev.). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
12. Been, W., Wijngaarden, Y. & Loots, E. (2023). Welcome to the inner circle? Earnings and inequality in the creative industries. Cultural Trends, 1-18. doi: 10.1080/09548963.2023.2181057.
13. Bennett, T., Savage, M., Silva, E. B., Warde, A., Gayo-Cal, M. & Wright, D. (2009). Culture, Class, Distinction. London and New York: Routledge.
14. Bellow, A. (2004). In praise of nepotism. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
15. Bielby, D. D. ve Bielby, W. T. (1996). Women and men in film: Gender inequality among writers in a culture industry. Gender & Society, 10(3), 248-270. doi: 10.1177/089124396010003004
16. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education içinde (s. 241-258). New York: Greenwood.
17. Bourdieu, P. (1987). What makes a social class? On the theoretical and practical existence of groups. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 32, 1-17. Erişim adresi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41035356
18. Bourdieu, P. (2015). Ayrım: Beğeni yargısının toplumsal eleştirisi. (D. Fırat & G. Berkkurt, Çev.). Ankara: Heretik Yayınları.
19. Bourdieu, P. (2016). Sosyoloji meseleleri. (A. Sümer, M. Gültekin, F. Öztürk & B. Uçar, Çev.). Ankara: Heretik Yayınları.
20. Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant L. (2014). Düşünümsel bir antropoloji için cevaplar. (N. Ökten, Çev.) İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
21. Butler, N. & Stoyanova-Russell, D. (2018). No funny business: Precarious work and emotional labour in stand-up comedy. Human Relations, 71(12), 1666–1686. doi: 10.1177/0018726718758880.
22. Calhoun, C. (2014). Bourdieu sosyolojisinin ana hatları. G. Çeğin, E. Göker, A. Arlı & Ü. Tatlıcan (Ed.), Ocak ve zanaat: Pierre Bourdieu derlemesi içinde (s. 77- 129). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
23. Campbell, M. (2020). ‘Shit is hard, yo’: Young people making a living in the creative industries. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 26(4), 524-543. doi: 10.1080/10286632.2018.1547380.
24. Cannizzo, F. & Strong, C. (2020). ‘Put some balls on that woman’: Gendered repertoires of inequality in screen composers’ careers. Gender, Work & Organization, 27(6), 1346-1360. doi: doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12496.
25. Chan, T. W. & Goldthorpe, J. H. (2007). The social stratification of cultural consumption: Some policy implications of a research project. Cultural Trends, 16(4), 373–384. doi: 10.1080/09548960701692787.
26. Collins, R. (1979). The credential society: An historical sociology of education and stratification. New York: Academic Press.
27. Collins, R. & Sanderson, S. K. (2009). Revolutions: A worldwide introduction to political and social change. London: Paradigm.
28. Conor, B., Gill, R. & Taylor, S. (2015). Gender and creative labour. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
29. Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30. Creswell, J. W. (2018). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri: Beş yaklaşıma göre nitel araştırma ve araştırma deseni. (M. Bütün & S. Demir, Çev.). Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
31. Crossley, N. (2015). Networks of sound, style and subversion. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
32. De Keere, K. (2022). Evaluating self-presentation: Gatekeeping recognition work in hiring. Cultural Sociology, 16(1), 86–110. doi: 10.1177/17499755211032527.
33. Devlet Tiyatroları Genel Müdürlüğü (2023). Devlet Tiyatroları Genel Müdürlüğü Performans Programı 2023. Erişim adresi: https://devtiyatro.gov.tr/uploads/pdfs/Performans_Program%C4%B1_2023.pdf
34. Diani, M. (2012). Charles Tilly'nin Identities, Boundaries and Social Ties adlı çalışmasındaki ilişkisel unsur. G. Çeğin & E. Göker (Ed.), Tözcülüğün tasfiyesi: İlişkisel sosyolojide temel yaklaşımlar içinde (s. 245-256). Ankara: NotaBene Yay.
35. Dowd, T. J. & Pinheiro, D. L. (2013). The ties among the notes: The social capital of jazz musicians in three metro areas. Work and Occupations, 40(4), 431-464. doi: 10.1177/0730888413504099.
36. English, P., de Villiers Scheepers, M.J., Fleischman, D., Burgess, J. & Crimmins, G. (2021). Developing professional networks: The missing link to graduate employability. Education + Training, 63(4), 647-661. doi: 10.1108/ET-10-2020-0309.
37. Ewick, P. & Silbey, S.S. (1995). Subversive stories and hegemonic tales: Toward a sociology of narrative. Law and Society Review, 29(2), 197–226. Erişim adresi: https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/lwsocrw29&id=207&collection=journals&index=.
38. Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community, and everyday life. New York: Basic Books.
39. Florida, R. (2017). The new urban crisis: How our cities are increasing inequality, deepening segregation, and failing the middle class – and what we can do about it. New York: Basic Books.
40. Friedman, S., O’Brien, D. & Laurison, D. (2017). ‘Like skydiving without a parachute’: How class origin shapes occupational trajectories in British acting. Sociology, 51(5), 992-1010. doi: 10.1177/0038038516629917.
41. Gill, R. (2002). Cool, creative and egalitarian? Exploring gender in project-based new media work in Euro. Information, Communication & Society, 5(1), 70-89. doi: 10.1080/13691180110117668.
42. Gill, R. & Pratt, A. (2008). In the social factory? Immaterial labour, precariousness and cultural work. Theory, Culture & Society, 25(7-8), 1-30. doi: 10.1177/0263276408097794.
43. Glesne, C. (2015). Nitel araştırmaya giriş (A. Ersoy & P. Yalçınoğlu, Çev.). Ankara: Anı Yay.
44. Gorji, Y., Carney, M. & Prakash, R. (2020). Indirect nepotism: Network sponsorship, social capital and career performance in show business families. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 11(3), 100285. doi: 10.1016/J. JFBS.2019.04.004.
45. Grugulis, I. & Stoyanova, D. (2012). Social capital and networks in film and TV: Jobs for the boys?. Organization Studies, 33(10), 1311-1331. doi: 10.1177/0170840612453525.
46. Hesmondhalgh, D. & Baker, S. (2010). Creative labour. New York: Routledge.
47. Hesmondhalgh, D., Nisbett, M., Oakley, K. & Lee, D. (2015). Were new labour’s cultural policies neo-liberal?. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 21(1), 97–114. doi: 10.1080/10286632.2013.879126.
48. Kolbe, K. (2022). Unequal entanglements: How arts practitioners reflect on the impact of intensifying economic inequality. Cultural Trends, 31(3), 257-272. doi: 10.1080/09548963.2021.1976594.
49. Koppman, S. (2016). Different like me: Why cultural omnivores get creative jobs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(2), 291-331. doi: 10.1177/0001839215616840.
50. Lamont, M. & Fournier, M. (1992). Cultivating differences: Symbolic boundaries and the making of inequality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
51. Le, H., Jogulu, U. & Rentschler, R. (2014). Understanding Australian ethnic minority artists’ careers. Australian Journal of Career Development, 23(2), 57–68. doi: 10.1177/1038416214521400.
52. Lee, R. (2009). Social capital and business and management: Setting a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(3), 247-273. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00244.x.
53. Lee, D. (2011). Networks, cultural capital and creative labour in the British independent television industry. Media, Culture & Society, 33(4), 549–565. doi: 10.1177/0163443711398693.
54. Lin, N. (1999). Social networks and status attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 467–487. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.467.
55. Lindemann, D. J., Rush, C. A. & Tepper, S. J. (2016). An asymmetrical portrait: Exploring gendered income inequality in the arts. Social Currents, 3(4), 332-348. doi: 10.1177/2329496516636399.
56. Littler, J. (2013). Meritocracy as plutocracy: The marketising of ‘equality’ within neoliberalism. New Formations, 80(81), 52-72. doi: 10.3898/NewF.80/81.03.2013.
57. Littler, J. (2018). Against meritocracy: Culture, power, and myths of mobility. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
58. Macdonald, K. M. (1985). Social closure and occupational registration. Sociology, 19(4), 541-556. doi: 10.1177/0038038585019004004.
59. Martin, N. D., Frenette, A. & Gualtieri, G. (2023). Campus connections for creative careers: Social capital, gender inequality, and artistic work. Poetics, 96, 101763. doi: 10.1016/j.poetic.2023.101763.
60. Merriam, S. B. (2015). Nitel araştırma: Desen ve uygulama için bir rehber (S. Turan, Çev.). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayınları.
61. Milano, R. (2020). Economic freedom and inequality in the art market: The case of the commercial gallery. Arts, 9(4), 126–138. doi: 10.3390/arts9040126.
62. Murphy, R. (1984). The structure of closure: A critique and development of the theories of Weber, Collins, and Parkin. British Journal of Sociology, 35(4), 547–567. doi: 10.2307/590434.
63. Murphy, R. (1988). Social closure: The theory of monopolization and exclusion. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
64. Oakley, K., Laurison, D., O’Brien, D. & Friedman, S. (2017). Cultural capital: Arts graduates, spatial inequality, and London’s impact on cultural labor markets. American Behavioral Scientist, 61(12), 1510–1531. doi: 10.1177/0002764217734274.
65. Oakley, K. & O'Brien, D. (2016). Learning to labour unequally: Understanding the relationship between cultural production, cultural consumption and inequality. Social Identities, 22(5), 471-486. doi: 10.1080/13504630.2015.1128800.
66. O’Brien, D. (2020). Class and the problem of inequality in theatre. Studies in Theatre and Performance, 40(3), 242-250. doi: 10.1080/14682761.2020.1807212.
67. O’Brien, D., Allen, K., Friedman, S. & Saha, A. (2017). Producing and consuming inequality: A cultural sociology of the cultural industries. Cultural Sociology, 11(3), 271-282. doi: 10.1177/1749975517712465.
68. O’Brien, D., Laurison, D., Miles, A. & Friedman, S. (2016). Are the creative industries meritocratic? An analysis of the 2014 British Labour Force Survey. Cultural Trends, 25(2), 116-131. doi: 10.1080/09548963.2016.1170943.
69. Parkin, F. (1979). Marxism and class theory: A bourgeois critique. New York: Columbia University Press.
70. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century: A multidimensional approach to the history of capital and social classes. The British Journal of Sociology, 65(4), 736–747. Erişim adresi: http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Piketty2014BJS.pdf.
71. Prieur, A. & Savage, M. (2013). Emerging forms of cultural capital. European Societies, 15(2), 246-267. doi: 10.1080/14616696.2012.748930.
72. Randle, K., Forson, C. & Calveley, M. (2015). Towards a Bourdieusian analysis of the social composition of the UK film and television workforce. Work, Employment and Society, 29(4), 590-606. doi: 10.1177/0950017014542498.
73. Rivera, L. A. (2012). Hiring as cultural matching: The case of elite professional service firms. American Sociological Review, 77(6), 999–1022. doi: 10.1177/0003122412463213.
74. Roscigno, V. J. (2007). The face of discrimination: How race and gender impact work and home lives. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
75. Roscigno, V. J., Garcia L. M. & Bobbitt-Zeher, D. (2007). Social closure and processes of race/sex employment discrimination. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 609(1), 16-48. doi: 10.1177/0002716206294898.
76. Roscigno, V. J., Mong, S., Byron, R. & Tester, G. (2007). Age discrimination, social closure and employment. Social Forces, 86(1), 313-334. doi: 10.1353/sof.2007.0109.
77. Rosen, S. (1981). The economics of superstars. The American Economic Review, 71(5), 845-858. Erişim adresi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1803469.
78. Saha, A. (2012). Beards, scarves, halal meat, terrorists, forced marriage’: television industries and the production of ‘race. Media, Culture & Society, 34(4), 424-438. doi: 10.1177/0163443711436356.
79. Saha, A. (2018). Race and the cultural industries. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
80. Sayer, A. (2017). Sosyal bilimde yöntem: Realist bir yaklaşım (S. Gürses, Çev.). İstanbul: Küre Yayınları.
81. Sennett, R. (2011). Yeni kapitalizmin kültürü (A. Onacak, Çev.). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları
82. Stokes, A. (2021). Masters of none? How cultural workers use reframing to achieve legitimacy in portfolio careers. Work, Employment and Society, 35(2), 350-368. doi: 10.1177/0950017020977324.
83. Subramaniam, M., Perrucci, R. & Whitlock, D. (2014). Intellectual closure: A theoretical framework linking knowledge, power and the corporate university. Critical Sociology, 40(3), 411-430. doi: 10.1177/0896920512463412.
84. Swartz, D. (2018). Kültür ve iktidar: Pierre Bourdieu'nün sosyolojisi (E. Gen, Çev.). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları
85. Tilly, C. (1998). Durable inequality. Berkeley: University of California Press.
86. Tilly, C. (2012). Eşitsizliğin ilişkisel kökenleri. G. Çeğin & E. Göker (Ed.), Tözcülüğün tasfiyesi: İlişkisel sosyolojide temel yaklaşımlar içinde (s. 219-243). Ankara: NotaBene Yayınları.
87. Tomaskovic-Devey, D. & Stainback, K. (2007). Discrimination and desegregation: Equal opportunity progress in U.S. private sector workplaces since the civil rights act. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 609(1), 49-84. doi: 10.1177/0002716206294809
88. Tremblay, D. G. & Dehesa, A. D. H. (2016). Being a creative and an immigrant in Montreal: What support for the development of a creative career?. SAGE Open, 6(3), doi: 2158244016664237.
89. TÜİK (2022). Sinema ve gösteri sanatları istatistikleri. Erişim adresi: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Cinema-and-Performing-Arts-Statistics-2022-49695.
90. Ünal, M. S. & Koçancı, M. (2020). Çalışma ilişkileri açısından Türkiye’de kültür endüstrisi ve tiyatro prekaryası. Bursa: Dora Yayınları.
91. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
92. Weeden, K. A. & Grusky, D. B. (2005). The case for a new class map. American Journal of Sociology, 111(1), 141–212. doi: 10.1086/428815.
93. Weis, L. (1981). The reproduction of social inequality: Closure in the Ghanaian university. The Journal of Developing Areas, 16(1), 17-30. Erişim adresi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4190970.
94. Wilson, G. (2005). Race, ethnicity, and inequality in the American workplace: Evolving issues. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(9), 1151-56. doi: 10.1177/0002764205274813.
95. Wright, E. O. (2014). Neo-marksist sınıf analizinin esasları (Ç. Çidamlı, Çev.). E. O. Wright (Ed.), Sınıf analizine yaklaşımlar içinde (s. 15-48). Ankara: NotaBene Yayınları.
96. Yuen, N. W. (2019). Reel inequality: Hollywood actors and racism. London: Rutgers University Press.
97. Zimdars, A., Sullivan, A. & Heath, A. (2009). Elite higher education admissions in the arts and sciences: Is cultural capital the key?. Sociology, 43(4), 648-666. doi: 10.1177/0038038509105413.