Ötekilik Sorunu: William Shakespeare’in Othello eserinde “Öteki”nin Temsili

Öz

Bu çalışmada, Shakespeare dramasında ötekilik, yani yabancılık teması incelenmiştir. Özellikle de Shakespeare’in Othello eserindeki ötekiliğin temsili üzerine yoğunlaşılmıştır. Ötekiler yazarın birçok sayıda eserinde rol almışlardır, fakat her biri farklı bir görev üstlenmiştir. Shakespeare’de ötekiler sıradan yabancı karakterlerden fazlasıdır. Eleştirmenler tarafından çok çeşitli işlevler atfedilmiştir. Margo Hendricks’e göre onlar gerçek karakterlerden ziyade birer karikatür, stereotiptirler. Diğer taraftan Loomba, ötekilerin Shakespeare dramasında sadece söylem figürleri olduklarını ve bir bakış açısı oluşturmak üzere akla getirildiklerini uygun bir şekilde öne sürmüştür. Ona göre, bu yabancılar başlangıçta tiyatrolarda birer “dipnot” gibi yani ikincil öneme sahip gibi görülürken, sonradan Batı ve Doğu arasındaki ilişkiyi irdeleme vasıtası olarak değer kazanmıştır. Bu bağlamda Otello istenmeyen “öteki “den ziyade toplumda çok fonksiyonlu bir rol edinmiştir. Bu çalışmada Otello’nun rolleri bakımından iki boyutlu olduğu öne sürülmüştür. Bir taraftan asimile edilen ve mevcut düzen doğrultusunda şekillendirilen deyim yerindeyse “biz”in düşmanı, diğer bir taraftan da burada bilhassa vurgulandığı üzere toplumun tamamlayıcı rol üstlenen bir üyesidir. Bu ikilem areasında kalan Shakespeare de karakteri günah keçisi olarak resmetme yolunu seçmiştir; fakat onu bu şekilde kurban gibi göstermesi çoktan önyargılı olan seyirciyi tatmin etmez, aksine çoğunluk mağdura sempati duymakla kalır. İnsanların önyargıları da en sonunda bir bumerang misali kendilerine dönerek ters yüz olur

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ötekilik,Otello,Biz-Diğerleri

THE QUESTION OF ALTERITY: REPRESENTATION OF “OTHER” IN WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE’S OTHELLO

Öz

In this article, I deal with otherness, namely foreignness in Shakespearean drama. Particularly, the representation of alterity in Shakespeare’s Othello is the dominant issue throughout. A number of Shakespeare’s plays include a foreign character; however, each of them fulfils a different function. In Shakespeare’s drama, “others” represent more than commonplace “alien” figures. They are ascribed several functions by critics. According to Margo Hendricks, they are caricatures, stereotypes other than real characters. On the other hand, Loomba aptly argues that “others are only figures of speech in Shakespearean drama, conjured up to establish a point of view” . In her view, these outsiders are initially regarded as “footnotes”, that is, they have secondary importance in the theatres; however, later on they gain value as a means to probe the relationship between West and East. In this context Othello, apart from the undesirable “alien” character, undertakes a multi-functional role in community. It is put forward in this study that Othello is two-dimensional in terms of his roles. On the one hand he is “other” who symbolizes, so to speak, the enemies of the “same”. From this aspect, he is assimilated and moulded in accordance with the available order. On the other hand, he is an individual member of the community who undertakes a complementary function that is emphasized throughout. Shakespeare, who stands in between this duality, comes up with the solution of presenting this character as scapegoat. However, that kind of sacrifice does not satisfy the biased audience; on the contrary, the majority ends up sympathizing with the victim. The people’s prejudices show a boomerang effect by turning towards them in the end

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Alterity,Othello,Same-Other

Kaynakça

1. Adelman, Janet. (2008). Blood Relations: Christian and Jew in The Merchant of Venice. London: U of Chicago P
2. Alexander, Catherine M.S., and Stanley Wells. (2000). eds. Shakespeare and Race. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
3. Al-Kadi, Thaer T. (2000). “‘Here is My Space’: Shakespeare’s Treatment of The Orient in Othello, Antony and Cleopatra and The Tempest”. PhD diss., December 20, IndianaUniversity of Pennsylvania.
4. Bacon, Helen. Barbarians in Greek Tragedy. New Haven: Yale UP, 1961.
5. Bajpaie, Sahana. (2007).“Who Speaks for the Moor? Interrogating Shakespeare’s Othello”, BRAC U Journal (4.2, pp.99-103).
6. Baker, William, and Brian Vickers. (2005). eds. The Merchant of Venice. Cornwall: MPG Books Ltd.
7. Bate, Jonathan and Eric Rasmussen. (2007). eds. “The Merchant of Venice [1596].”William Shakespeare Complete Works (pp. 418-470). The Royal Shakespeare Company.
8. Bate, Jonathan and Eric Rasmussen, eds. (2007) “The Tragedy of Othello, The Moor of Venice [1604].” William Shakespeare Complete Works (pp. 2086-2156). The Royal Shakespeare Company.

9. Berek, Peter. (1998). “The Jew as Renaissance Man”, Shakespeare Quarterly (51.1, pp. 128-162).
10. Berry, Edward. (1990). “Othello’s Alienation”, Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900 (30.2, pp. 315-333).
11. Bovilsky, Lara. (2008). Barbarous Play: Race on the English Renaissance Stage. US: U of Minnesota P.
12. Butcher, Philip. (1952). “Othello’s Racial Identity”, Shakespeare Quarterly (3.3, pp. 243-247).
13. Cohen, D.M. (1980). “The Jew and Shylock”, Shakespeare Quarterly (31.1, pp. 53-63).
14. Cooper, John R. (1970). “Shylock’s Humanity”, Shakespeare Quarterly (21.2, pp. 117-124).
15. Cora Alonso, Jesşs. (1996). “Shylock’s Five-Facetted Character”, Sederi VII (pp. 253-259) Universidad De Alcalá De Henares.
16. Dadabhoy, Ambereen. (2008). “Inscribing the Other: the Circulation of Difference on the Early Modern Stage”. Diss. Faculty of Claremont Graduate U. Claremont, California.
17. Danson, Lawrence. (1978). The Harmonies of The Merchant of Venice. New Haven and London, Yale UP.
18. Fiedler, Leslie. (1974). The Stranger in Shakespeare. Granada: Granada Publishing Ltd.
19. Gillies, John. (1994). Shakespeare and the Geography of Difference. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
20. Girard, René. (1986). The Scapegoat. US: The Johns Hopkins UP.
21. Girard, René. (1980). “‘To Entrap the Wisest’: A Reading of The Merchant of Venice”, Literature and Society: Selected Papers from the English Institute, 1978, ed. Edward W. Said (pp. 100-119) Baltimore and London.
22. Girard, René. (1977). Violence and the Sacred. US: The Johns Hopkins UP.
23. Gross, John. (1994). Shylock, A Legend and Its Legacy. New York: Simon&Schuster Inc.
24. Gross, Kenneth. (2006). Shylock is Shakespeare. Chicago and London: U of Chicago P.
25. Hendricks, Margo. (2000). “Surveying ‘Race’ in Shakespeare”, Shakespeare and Race, eds. Catherine M.S. Alexander and Stanley Wells, (pp. 1-22) Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
26. Honigmann, E.A.J. (1997). ed. Othello. Walton: Thomas Nelson&Sons Ltd.
27. Jeoung, Haegap. (2003). “An Africanist-Orientalist Discourse: The Other in Shakespeare and Hellenistic Tragedy.” Diss. Louisiana State U and Agricultural and Mechanical College. December.
28. Kristeva, Julia. (1991). Strangers to Ourselves. New York: Colombia UP.
29. Loomba, Ania. (2005). Colonialism-Postcolonialism. 2nd ed. London &New York:Routledge.
30. Loomba, Ania. (2002). Shakespeare, Race, and Colonialism. New York: Oxford UP.
31. Lupton, Julia Reinhard. (1997). “Othello Circumcised: Shakespeare and the Pauline Discourse of Nations.” Representations (57, pp. 73-89).
32. Neill, Michael. (2006). ed. Othello, The Moor of Venice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
33. Orkin, Martin. (1987). “Othello and the Plain Face of Racism”, Shakespeare Quarterly (38.2, pp. 166-188).
34. O’Rourke, James. (2003). “Racism and Homophobia in The Merchant of Venice”, ELH (70.2, pp. 375-97).
35. Özkan, Yağmur. (2007). “Europe and Its Others: Immigrants and New Racism”. Diss. Middle East Technical U.
36. Peck, John and Martin Coyle. (2002). eds. Literary Terms and Criticism, 3rd ed. New York
37. Palgrave Publishers Ltd.
38. Propp, Vladimir. (1968). Morphology of the Folktale. trans.Laurence Scott. Baltimore, Maryland Port City P.
39. Ribner, Irving. (1964). “Marlowe and Shakespeare”, Shakespeare Quarterly (15.2, pp. 41-53).
40. Romero, M. Ross. (2010). “Scripture’s Reversal: Recognizing the Scapegoat with René Girard and Flannery O’Connor”, Journal of Philosophy and Scripture. (pp. 1-8).
41. Rutherford, Jonathan. (2003). Identity: Community, Culture and Difference, London: Lawrence and Wishart Ltd.
42. Said, Edward W. (2003). Orientalism. London: Penguin Books Ltd.
43. Shapiro, James. (1996). Shakespeare and the Jews. New York: Columbia UP.
44. Şengül, Abdullah. (2007). “Edebiyatta Ötekilik Meselesi ve Türk Edebiyatında Öteki[The Other in Turkish Literature]”, Karadeniz Araştırmaları (15, pp. 97-116).
45. Vitkus, Daniel J. (1997). “Turning Turk in Othello: The Conversion and Damnation of the Moor”, Shakespeare Quarterly (48.2, pp. 145-176).
46. Yamato, Gloria. (2004). “Something About the Subject Makes It Hard To Name”, Race, Class, and Gender, eds. Margaret L. Anderson and Patricia Hill Collins (pp. 99-103) New York: Thomson/Wadsworth Pub.