Rızanın Metalaşması: Yumuşak Gücün Kültür Endüstrisi Olarak Yeniden Okunması

Öz

Bu çalışma, Joseph Nye’ın neoliberal bir perspektifle uluslararası ilişkiler literatürüne kazandırdığı Yumuşak Güç kavramını, Frankfurt Okulu’nun eleştirel yaklaşımıyla yeniden okumayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma, yumuşak gücün cazibeye dayalı rıza üretim sürecinin, aslında Adorno ve Horkheimer’ın “Kültür Endüstrisi” kavramsallaştırmasıyla örtüşen endüstriyel bir tahakküm mekanizması olduğunu savunmaktadır. Diyalektik bir yöntemle ve dijital platform kapitalizmi bağlamında gerçekleştirilen analiz; yumuşak gücün organik bir kültürel etkileşimden ziyade, rızanın metalaşması sürecine tekabül ettiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Makalede; Amerikan Rüyası, K-Pop (Güney Kore) ve Türk dizileri örnek olayları üzerinden, yükselen güçlerin hegemonik kültür endüstrisine karşı aslında bir karşı-hegemonya üretmek yerine, var olan hegemonik yapıyı nasıl taklit ederek bir yeniden üretim sürecine soktukları tartışılmaktadır. Elde edilen bulgular; yumuşak gücün, dijital altyapısal emperyalizm ve algoritmik yönetimsellik yoluyla tahakkümü estetikleştiren ve görünmez kılan bir kitle aldatmacası işlevi gördüğünü göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• yumuşak güç
• kültür endüstrisi
• Frankfurt Okulu
• dijital platform kapitalizmi
• rızanın metalaşması

The Commodification of Consent: Re-reading Soft Power as the Culture Industry

Öz

This study aims to re-read Joseph Nye’s concept of Soft Power, introduced to the international relations literature through a neoliberal perspective, through the critical lens of the Frankfurt School. The study argues that the process of consent production based on attraction in soft power is, in fact, an industrial mechanism of domination that overlaps with Adorno and Horkheimer's conceptualization of the Culture Industry. The analysis, conducted through a dialectical method and within the context of digital platform capitalism, reveals that soft power corresponds to a process of commodification of consent rather than organic cultural interaction. Through the case studies of American Dream, K-Pop (South Korea), and Turkish TV series, the article discusses how rising powers initiate a process of reproduction of the existing hegemonic structure by imitating it instead of producing a counter-hegemony. The findings demonstrate that soft power functions as a form of mass deception that aestheticizes and renders domination invisible through digital infrastructural imperialism and algorithmic governmentality.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• soft power
• culture industry
• Frankfurt School
• digital platform capitalism
• commodification of consent

Kaynakça

1. Adorno, T. W. (1991). The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture. Routledge.
2. Andrejevic, M. (2007). iSpy: Surveillance and Power In The Interactive Era. University Press of Kansas.
3. Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. University of Minnesota Press.
4. Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and Simulation (S. F. Glaser, Trans.). University of Michigan Press.
5. Bauman, Z. (2017). Retrotopia. Polity Press.
6. Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The Location of Culture. Routledge.
7. Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford University Press.
8. Couldry, N., ve Mejias, U. A. (2019). The Costs of Connection: How Data Is Colonizing Human Life and Appropriating It For Capitalism. Stanford University Press.

9. Cox, R. W. (1981). Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. Millennium, 10(2), s. 126–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298810100020501
10. Dean, J. (2009). Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies: Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics. Duke University Press.
11. Debord, G. (1994). The Society of the Spectacle (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Zone Books.
12. Der Derian, J. (2009). Virtuous War: Mapping the Military-Industrial-Media-Entertainment Network (2nd ed.). Routledge.
13. DiMaggio, P. J., ve Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), s. 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
14. Dirlik, A. (1996). Chinese History and The Question of Orientalism. History and Theory, 35(4), s. 96–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/2505446
15. Fuchs, C. (2014). Digital Labour and Karl Marx. Routledge.
16. Giroux, H. A. (1998). Public Pedagogy and Rodent Politics: Cultural Studies and the Challenge of Disney. Arizona Journal of Hispanic Cultural Studies, 2, s. 253–66. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20641425
17. Giroux, H. A. (2011). On Critical Pedagogy. Continuum.
18. Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.
19. Hobsbawm, E., ve Ranger, T. (Eds.). (1983). The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge University Press.
20. Horkheimer, M., ve Adorno, T. W. (2002). Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophica Fragments (E. Jephcott, Trans.). Stanford University Press. (Orijinal eser 1944’te yayımlanmıştır).
21. Iwabuchi, K. (2002). Recentering Globalization: Popular Culture and Japanese Transnationalism. Duke University Press.
22. Jin, D. Y. (2015). Digital Platforms, Imperialism and Political Culture. Routledge.
23. Kraidy, M. M. (2006). Hybridity, or the Cultural Logic of Globalization. Temple University Press.
24. Lenoir, T. (2000). All But War Is Simulation: The Military-Entertainment Complex. Configurations, 8(3), s. 289–335. https://doi.org/10.1353/con.2000.0022
25. Lie, J. (2012). What is the K in K-pop? South Korean Popular Music, the Culture Industry, and National Identity. Korea Observer, 43(3), s. 339–363.
26. Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A Radical View (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
27. Marcuse, H. (2003). One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society (1st ed.). Routledge.
28. Marx, K. (1990). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. 1 (B. Fowkes, Trans.). Penguin Classics. (Orijinal eser 1867'de yayımlanmıştır).
29. Mattern, J. B. (2005). Why 'Soft Power' isn't So Soft: Representational Force and the Sociolinguistic Construction of Attraction in World Politics. Millennium, 33(3), s. 583–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298050330031601
30. Mirrlees, T. (2013). Global Entertainment Media: Between Cultural Imperialism and Cultural Globalization. Routledge.
31. Mirrlees, T. (2016). Hearts and Mines: The US Empire's Culture Industry. UBC Press.
32. Nye, J. S. (1990). Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. Basic Books.
33. Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. PublicAffairs.
34. Nye, J. S. (2008). Public Diplomacy and Soft Power. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), s. 94–109. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25097996
35. Nye, J. S. (2011). The Future of Power. PublicAffairs.
36. Pasquale, F. (2015). The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Harvard University Press.
37. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Harvard University Press.
38. Ritzer, G. (2003). The Globalization of Nothing. SAGE Publications.
39. Ritzer, G. (2004). The McDonaldization of Society: Revised New Century Edition. SAGE Publications.
40. Ritzer, G., ve Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, Consumption, Prosumption: The Nature of Capitalism in the Age of the Digital 'Prosumer'. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(1), s. 13–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540509354673
41. Robertson, R. (1995). Glocalization: Time-Space and Homogeneity-Heterogeneity. In M. Featherstone, S. Lash, ve R. Robertson (Eds.), Global Modernities (s. 25–44). Sage Publications.
42. Rouvroy, A., ve Berns, T. (2013). Algorithmic Governmentality and Prospects of Emancipation. Réseaux, 177(1), s. 163–196. https://doi.org/10.3917/res.177.0163
43. Saunders, F. S. (2016). The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters. The New Press.
44. Schiller, H. I. (1991). Not Yet The Post-Imperialist Era. Critical Studies In Mass Communication, 8(1), s. 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295039109366777
45. Seymour, R. (2019). The Twittering Machine: How Capitalism Stole Our Social Life. Indigo Press.
46. Shambaugh, D. (2013). China Goes Global: The Partial Power. Oxford University Press.
47. Srnicek, N. (2016). Platform Capitalism. Polity Press.
48. Stahl, R. (2010). Militainment, Inc.: War, Media, and Popular Culture. Routledge.
49. Starosielski, N. (2015). The Undersea Network. Duke University Press.
50. Strange, S. (1988). States and Markets. Pinter Publishers.
51. Terranova, T. (2000). Free Labor: Producing Culture for the Digital Economy. Social Text, 18(2), s. 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1215/01642472-18-2_63-33
52. Thatcher, J., O'Sullivan, D., ve Mahmoudi, D. (2016). Data Colonialism Through Accumulation by Dispossession: New Metaphors for Daily Data. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 34(6), s. 990–1006. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775816633195
53. Thussu, D. K. (2007). News As Entertainment: The Rise of Global Infotainment. Sage Publications.
54. Vuving, A. L. (2009). How Soft Power Works. APSA 2009 Toronto Meeting Paper. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1466220
55. Winseck, D. (2017). The Geopolitical Economy of the Global Internet Infrastructure. Journal of Information Policy, 7, s. 228–267. https://doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.7.2017.0228
56. Yanardağoğlu, E., ve Karam, I. N. (2013). The Fever That Hit Arab Satellite Television: Audience Perceptions of Turkish TV Series. Identities, 20(5), s. 561–579. https://doi.org/10.1080/1070289X.2013.823089