The Conundrum of Being a Minority: Choosing a Collective Identity in the Era of Neoliberal Globalism

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 78 Sayı: 4, 813 - 832, 26.12.2023

Aret Karademir

https://doi.org/10.33630/ausbf.1190662

Öz

This paper argues that by portraying minority concerns primarily as cultural concerns and by discussing minority existence independently of capitalism, neoliberalism, feminism, environmentalism,
globalization, and the distinction between the Right and the Left, the dominant discourse on ethno-cultural minorities, namely multiculturalism, may lead to the reduction of minority communities to cultural entities in the collective consciousness of the dominant majority. Such reductionism endangers minority existence by identifying the question of minorities with the question of culture to the point that minorities voicing their noncultural political concerns increasingly appear unintelligible, presumptuous, or even destructive to wider society. Against this background, the paper discusses why and how ethno-cultural minorities may find their collective identity in different, not necessarily ethno-cultural, political formations in the age of neoliberal globalism, such as anti-neoliberal, anti-globalist, cosmopolitan, environmentalist, anti-capitalist, feminist, radical democratic, republican, and anti-imperialist. This discussion is based on Ernesto Laclau’s and Chantal Mouffe’s understanding of hegemony and social antagonism.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Multiculturalism, Hegemony, Neoliberalism, Globalization, Identity

Azınlık Olma Muamması: Neoliberal Küreselleşme Çağında Kolektif Kimlik Seçimi

Öz

Etno-kültürel azınlıklar literatürüne egemen söylem, başka bir deyişle çokkültürcülük, azınlık kaygılarını öncelikli olarak kültürel kaygılar addedip; “azınlık olmak” olgusunu genellikle kapitalizmden,
neoliberalizmden, feminizmden, küreselleşmeden ve sağ ve sol ayrımından bağımsız bir şekilde kavramsallaştırır. Bu da azınlık cemaatlerinin toplumsal çoğunluğun kolektif hafızasında “sadece” kültürel varlıklar olarak kodlanmaları tehlikesini doğurur. Böylesi indirgemeci bir kodlama azınlık varoluşu için tehlikelidir; çünkü azınlık sorununun kültürel sorunlarla eşlenmesine ve dolayısıyla azınlıkların “kültür dışı” siyasi taleplerinin toplumun geri kalanınca anlamsız, küstah ve hatta tehditkâr olarak algılanmasına yol açar. Bu makalede, bahsi geçen tehlike göz önünde bulundurularak, içinde yaşadığımız neoliberal küreselleşme çağında etno-kültürel azınlıkların kolektif kimliklerini nasıl tanımlayabilecekleri ve niye kimlik tanımlarının kültürel kodlara dayanmak zorunda olmadığı inceleniyor. Daha detaylı söylenecek olursa, etno-kültürel azınlıkların neoliberalizm karşıtı, küreselleşme karşıtı, kozmopolit, çevreci, anti-kapitalist, feminist, radikal demokrat, cumhuriyetçi veya anti-emperyalist gibi kimlikleri niye ve nasıl benimseyebilecekleri tartışmaya açılıyor. Bu tartışmanın teorik altyapısını ise Ernesto Laclau ve Chantal Mouffe’un hegemonya ve sosyal antagonizma kavramları oluşturuyor

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çokkültürcülük, Hegemonya, Neoliberalizm, Küreselleşme, Kimlik

Kaynakça

• Barry, Brian (2001), Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism (Cambridge: Polity Press).
• Beck, Ulrich (1997), The Reinvention of Politics: Rethinking Modernity in the Global Social Order (Cambridge: Polity Press) (Trans. Mark Ritter).
• Cantle, Ted (2012), Interculturalism: The New Era of Cohesion and Diversity (New York: Palgrave Macmillan).
• Carens, Joseph (2000), Culture, Citizenship, and Community: A Contextual Exploration of Justice as Evenhandedness (New York: Oxford University Press).
• Castells, Manuel (2006), “Globalisation and Identity: A Comparative Perspective,” Transfer: Journal of Contemporary Culture, 1: 56-67.
• Crouch, Colin (2004), Post-democracy (Cambridge: Polity Press).
• Crouch, Colin (2019), The Globalization Backlash (Cambridge: Polity Press).
• Cuperus, René (2011), “The Populist Revolt against Cosmopolitanism,” McTernan, Michael (Ed.), Exploring the Cultural Challenges to Social Democracy (London: Policy Network): 19-28.
• Freedland, Mark (2001), “The Marketization of Public Services,” Crouch, Colin, Klaus Eder and Damian Tambini (Eds.), Citizenship, Markets, and the State (New York: Oxford University Press): 90-110.
• Fricker, Miranda (2007), Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing (New York: Oxford University Press).
• Giddens, Anthony (1998), The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy (Cambridge: Polity Press).
• Giddens, Anthony (2002), Runaway World: How Globalisation is Reshaping Our Lives, 2nd ed. (London: Profile Books).
• Goodwin, Matthew (2001), “Europe’s Radical Right: Support and Potential,” Political Insight: Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom, 2 (3): 4-7.
• Gurr, Ted (2000), Peoples versus States: Minorities at Risk in the New Century (Washington: United States Institute of Peace).
• Habermas, Jürgen (1987), The Theory of Communicative Action: Lifeworld and System, Volume 2 (Boston: Beacon Press) (Trans. Thomas McCarthy).
• Hammer, Yoav (2007), “Multiculturalism and the Mass Media,” Law & Ethics of Human Rights, 1: 169-212.
• Harvey, David (2005), A Brief History of Neoliberalism (New York: Oxford University Press).
• Kymlicka, Will (1995), Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (New York: Oxford University Press).
• Laclau, Ernesto (1996), Emancipation(s) (London: Verso).
• Laclau, Ernesto (2005), On Populist Reason (London: Verso).
• Laclau, Ernesto (2014). The Rhetorical Foundations of Society (London: Verso).
• Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe (2001), Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics, 2nd ed. (London: Verso).
• Levy, Jacob (2000), The Multiculturalism of Fear (New York: Oxford University Press).
• Margalit, Avishai and Joseph Raz (1990), “National Self-determination,” The Journal of Philosophy, 87 (9): 439-461.
• Modood, Tariq (2013), Multiculturalism: A Civic Idea, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Polity Press).
• Mouffe, Chantal (2000), The Democratic Paradox (London: Verso).
• Norman, Wayne (2006), Negotiating Nationalism: Nation-building, Federalism, and Secession in the Multinational State (New York: Oxford University Press).
• Okin, Susan M. (1999), “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?”, Cohen, Joshua, Matthew Howard and Martha Nussbaum, Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women (Princeton: Princeton University Press): 7-25.
• Parekh, Bhikhu (2006), Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory, 2nd ed. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan).
• Parvin, Phil (2014), “Democracy without Participation: A New Politics for a Disengaged Era,” Res Publica, 24: 31-52.
• Penz, Peter (1992), “Development Refugees and Distributive Justice: Indigenous Peoples, Land and the Developmentalist State,” Public Affairs Quarterly, 6: 105-131.
• Schmidt, Alvin (1997), The Menace of Multiculturalism: Trojan Horse in America (Westport: Praeger Publishers).
• Shachar, Ayelet (2001), Multicultural Jurisdictions: Cultural Differences and Women’s Rights (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
• Spinner-Halev, Jeff (2000), Surviving Diversity: Religion and Democratic Citizenship (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press).
• Tamir, Yael (2019), Why Nationalism (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
• Taylor, Charles (1994), “The Politics of Recognition,” Gutmann, Amy (Ed.), Multiculturalism (Princeton: Princeton University Press): 25-73.
• Valadez, Jorge M. (2001), Deliberative Democracy, Political Legitimacy and Self-determination in Multicultural Societies (New York: Taylor & Francis).
• Walzer, Michael (1983), Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality (New York: Basic Books).
• Wilson, Robin and Paul Hainsworth (2012), Far-right Parties and Discourse in Europe: A Challenge for Our Times (Brussels: European Network against Racism).
• Young, Iris M. (1990), Justice and the Politics of Difference (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
• Yuval-Davis, Nira (1997), Gender & Nation (London: SAGE Publications).