ŞEYTAN ÜÇGENİ: SALMAN RUSHDİE’NİN SOYTARI ŞALİMAR ROMANINDA AŞIRI SAĞCI NEO-CON’LAR İLE YENİ-ORYANTALİZM’İN İTTİFAKI

Year 2016, Issue: 36, 19 - 40, 22.12.2016

Beyazıt Akman

https://doi.org/10.21497/sefad.284933

Abstract

Bu makalede
Salman Rushdie’nin 11 Eylül sonrası yazdığı ilk roman ve yazarın en sıkıntılı
eserlerinden biri olan Soytarı Şalimar
adlı eserindeki oryantalist söylem analiz edilmektedir. Rushdie bu romanda
sözde “İslami terörist” kavramını ve bu konunun kolektif Batı algısındaki
yerini sorgulamak yerine, özellikle Bush yönetimi döneminde ortaya atılan
“şeytan üçgeni” kavramını besleyecek şekilde romanda “barbar Doğu” klişelerini
sıklıkla kullanmakta ve böylece yeni-oryantalist söylemin entelektüel altyapısını
oluşturmaktadır. Makalede aynı zamanda Rushdie’nin Hindistan kökenli ve
Müslümanların arasından çıkan bir yazar olmasından kaynaklanan
“içeriden/onlardan biri” statüsü de sorgulanmakta ve bu statünün Rushdie’ye
Batılı okuyucuları arasında haksız bir inandırıcılık kazandırdığı
gösterilmektedir. Edward Said, Mahmood Mandani ve Pankaj Mishra gibi eski ve
yeni sömürgecilik araştırmaları teorisyenlerinin düşüncelerinden
yararlanılarak, Rushdie’nin, pek çok entelektüelin aksine, Amerika’daki aşırı
sağcı neo-con’ların arasında kendini konumlandırışı gözler önüne serilmektedir.

Keywords

Rushdie, Soytarı Şalimar, İslam, oryantalizm, sömürgecilik araştırmaları

THE AXIS OF EVIL: THE ALLIANCE OF NEO-CONSERVATISM AND NEO-ORIENTALISM IN RUSHDIE’S SHALIMAR THE CLOWN

Abstract

In this
article, the Orientalist discourse in Salman Rushdie’s Shalimar the Clown (2005), one of the author’s most problematic
Works and his first novel after 9/11, is analyzed. It is argued that rather
than questioning the assumptions about the “Islamic
terrorist” and its place in the Western collective conscious, Rushdie
reinforces and licenses the intellectual neo-orientalist discourse of “the axis
of evil” perpetuated by the Bush administration by applying the stereotypes and
clichés about the East, without engaging in a dialogue to understand the Other
or historicizing the subject matter. It is also aimed to expose how Rushdie’s
so-called “insider” status that arises because of his Indian origin and coming
from amonst Muslims, gives him an unfair credit and makes him all the more
credible in the eyes of his readership, mostly the literary intelligencia of
the West. By building on the old and new post-colonial scholarship of
particularly Edward Said, Frantz Fanon, Mahmood Mandani, and Pankaj Mishra, it
is analyzed how, unlike many intellectuals, Rushdie positions himself amongst
the neo-conservatives of the United States.

Keywords

Rushdie, Shalimar The Clown, Islam, orientalism, post-colonialism

References

• AHLUWALIA, Pal (2005). “When Does a Settler Become a Native ?: Citizenship and Identity in a Settler Society.” In Poscolonialisms: An Anthology of Cultural Theory and Criticism. ed. Gaurav Desai and Supriya Nair. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. 500-514.
• ALMOND, Ian (2007). The New Orientalists. New York: I. B. Tauris.
• DİRLİK, Arif (2005). “The Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism.” In Poscolonialisms: An Anthology of Cultural Theory and Criticism. ed. Gaurav Desai and Supriya Nair. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. 561-89.
• FANON, Frantz (2005). “On National Culture,” in Poscolonialisms: An Anthology of Cultural Theory and Criticism. ed. Gaurav Desai & Supriya Nair. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. 198-220.
• GUHA, Ranajit (2005). “On Some Aspects of the Historiography of Colonial India.” In Poscolonialisms: An Anthology of Cultural Theory and Criticism. ed. Gaurav Desai & Supriya Nair. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. 403-410.
• HALL, Stuart (2005). “Thinking the Diaspora: Home-Thoughts from Abroad.” In Poscolonialisms: An Anthology of Cultural Theory and Criticism. ed. Gaurav Desai & Supriya Nair. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. 543-561.
• HAQ, Jalalul (1999). Post-Modernity, Paganism and Islam. New Delhi: Minerva Press.
• HEINEGG, Peter (2006). The Political is Personal. Review of Shalimar the Clown, by Salman Rushdie. America: The National Catholic Review. February 13.
• LA’PORTE, Victoria (1971). An Attempt to Understand the Muslim Reaction to the Satanic Verses. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press.
• MANDANI, Mahmood (2004). Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War and the Roots of Terror. New York: Pantheon.
• MISHRA, Pankaj (2007). Exit wounds. New Yorker. August, 13.
• OLIVER, Anne Marie (2004). “The Scandal of Literalism in Hamas, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, and Beyond,” in Globalization and the Muslim World: Culture, Religion, and Modernity. ed. Birgit Schaebler and Leif Stenberg. New York: Syracuse University Press. 206-24.
• PITKIN, Anabella (2007). Salman Rushdie Loses His Cheerfulness: Geopolitics, Terrorism and Adultery, Review of Shalimar the Clown, by Salman Rushdie. Journal of International Affairs. Fall/Winter 61 (1): 257-262.
• RUSHDIE, Salman (2001). “This is about Islam.” New York Times. Nov. 2.
• RUSHDIE, Salman (2005). Shalimar the Clown. New York: Random House.
• RUSHDIE, Salman (2007). Interview. Milliyet. Mar. 16-17.
• SAID, Edward (1978). Orientalism. New York: Vintage.
• SAID, Edward (1981). Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World. New York: Pantheon.
• SCHAEBLER, Birgit (2004). “Civilizing Others: Global Modernity and the Local Boundaries (French/German, Ottoman, and Arab) of Savagery,” in Globalization and the Muslim World: Culture, Religion, and Modernity. ed. Birgit Schaebler and Leif Stenberg. New York: Syracuse University Press. 3-30.
• STAM, Robert & SHOHAT, Ella (2005). “De-Eurocentricizing Cultural Studies: Some Proposals”. Internationalizing Cultural Studies: An Anthology. ed. Ackbar Abbas, et al. Oxford: Blackwell. 481-99.