YAZMA PRATİKLERİ VE ENGELLİ ÖZNENİN KİMLİK İNŞASI: SOL AYAĞIM VE SÜPER İYİ GÜNLER ÜZERİNE KARŞILAŞTIRMALI BİR OKUMA

Öz

Bu makale, yazma pratiklerinin engelli karakterlerin kimlik inşası ve özneleşme süreçlerindeki rolünü, farklı engel türleri bağlamında karşılaştırmaktadır. Bu doğrultuda, fiziksel engelli bir anlatıcıyı merkeze alan Sol Ayağım ile bilişsel farklılığa sahip bir anlatıcının deneyimini temsil eden Süper İyi Günler, engellilik çalışmaları çerçevesinde analiz edilmektedir. Analiz, her iki metinde de yazma pratiğinin, engelli karakterleri edilgen konumlardan çıkararak anlatan ve kendi deneyimlerini anlamlandıran öznelere dönüştüren ortak bir özneleşme pratiği olarak işlediğini göstermektedir. Bununla birlikte, yazının işlevi temsil edilen engel türüne bağlı olarak belirgin biçimde farklılaşmaktadır. Sol Ayağım’da yazı, kamusal görünürlük ve toplumsal tanınmanın kurucu bir mekanizması olarak işlev görür. Buna karşılık Süper İyi Günler’de ise yazı, öncelikle deneyimi düzenleme ve epistemik belirsizliği yönetmeye yönelik bilişsel bir araç olarak işlev görmektedir. Her iki eser de farklı anlatısal, bilişsel ve toplumsal koşullar tarafından şekillenen, engellilik türüne özgü özneleşme biçimleri üretir. Bu yönüyle çalışma, yazıyı doğası gereği özgürleştirici bir pratik olarak ele alan genelleyici yaklaşımları sorgulamakta ve engelli öznelik tartışmalarına karşılaştırmalı ve bağlama duyarlı bir katkı sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Engelli Çalışmaları
• Yazma Pratikleri
• Engelli Öznelik
• Kimlik İnşası
• Karşılaştırmalı Edebiyat

WRITING PRACTICES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF DISABLED SUBJECTIVITY: A COMPARATIVE READING OF MY LEFT FOOT AND THE CURIOUS INCIDENT OF THE DOG IN THE NIGHT-TIME

Öz

This article compares the role of writing practices in the processes of identity construction and subjectivity formation for disabled characters across different types of impairment. Focusing on My Left Foot, which centres on a physically disabled narrator, and The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, which represents a cognitively disabled narrator, the study adopts a disability studies framework to analyse how writing functions within each narrative. The analysis demonstrates that writing operates in both texts as a shared practice of subjectivation, enabling disabled characters to move beyond positions of passivity and to construct themselves as narrating subjects. However, the function of writing differs significantly depending on the type of impairment represented. In My Left Foot, writing serves as a constitutive mechanism of public visibility and social recognition. In contrast, in The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, it functions primarily as a cognitive tool for organising experience and managing epistemic uncertainty. Both works generate impairment-specific forms of subjectivation shaped by distinct narrative, cognitive, and social conditions. In doing so, the study contributes to disability studies by challenging generalised assumptions about writing as an inherently emancipatory practice and by offering a comparative, context-sensitive account of disabled subjectivity.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Disability Studies
• Writing Practices
• Disabled Subjectivity
• Identity Construction
• Comparative Literature.

Kaynakça

1. Adams, R., Reiss, B., ve Serlin, D. (Ed.). (2015). Keywords for disability. New York and New York University Press.
2. Arıkan, A., & Cihantimur, T. (2024). Engellilik kuramı ve edebiyat araştırmalarında kullanımı üzerine. 8th International Halich Congress on Multidisciplinary Scientific Research Proceedings Book, ss. 272-281. Istanbul, Turkiye.
3. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (M. Holquist, Ed.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). University of Texas Press.
4. Barnes, C., Mercer, G., & Shakespeare, T. (1999). Exploring disability: A sociological introduction. Polity Press. Baron-Cohen, S. (2003). The essential difference: Male and female brains and the truth about autism. Basic Books.
5. Bérubé, M. (2005). Disability and narrative. PMLA, 120(2), 568-576.
6. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (J. B. Thompson, Ed.; G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.). Polity Press.
7. Braddock, D. L., & Parish, S. L. (2001). An institutional history of disability. G. L. Albrecht, K. Seelman, & M. Bury (Ed.) içinde, Handbook of Disability Studies. Sage Publications.
8. Brown, C. (2023). Sol Ayağım. (F. Kahraman, Çev.). Nora Kitap.

9. Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Harvard University Press.
10. Bucuka, Y. (2019). Engelliler, din ve sosyal dışlanma. Bingöl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9(18), 899-929. https://doi.org/10.29029/busbed.581022.
11. Davis, L. J. (1995). Enforcing normalcy: Disability, deafness, and the body. Verso.
12. Davis, L. J. (Ed.). (2006). The disability studies reader (Second b.). The United States of America: Routledge.
13. Deleuze, G. (1990). The logic of sense (M. Lester, Trans.; C. V. Boundas, Ed.). The Athlone Press.
14. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press.
15. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
16. Derrida, J. (1997). Of grammatology (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). Johns Hopkins University Press.
17. Diedrich, L. (2001). Breaking down: A phenomenology of disability. Literature and Medicine, 20(2), 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1353/lm.2001.0019
18. Douglas, M. (2001). Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. Routledge. Foucault, M. (2006). Deliliğin tarihi (M. A. Kılıçbay, Çev.). İmge.
19. Foucault, M. (2011). Büyük kapatılma: Seçme yazılar 3 (I. Ergüden & F. Keskin, Çev.; 3. bs.). Ayrıntı Yayınları. Foucault, M. (2014). Seçme yazılar 2: Özne ve iktidar (İ. Ergüden & O. Akınhay, Çev.). Ayrıntı.
20. Garland-Thomson, R. (1997). Extraordinary bodies: Figuring physical disability in American culture and literature. Columbia University Press.
21. Garland-Thomson, R. (2009). Staring: How we look. Oxford University Press.
22. Garland-Thomson, R. (2017). Building a world with disability in it. In A. Waldschmidt, H. Berressem, & M. Ingwersen (Eds.), Culture-Theory-Disability: Encounters between disability studies and cultural studies (ss. 51–62). Transcript Verlag. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1xxs3r.8
23. Genette, G. (1980). Narrative discourse: An essay in method (J. E. Lewin, Trans.). Cornell University Press.
24. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Polity Press.
25. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Prentice-Hall.
26. Goffman, E. (1966). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. The Free Press.
27. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.
28. Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 2. Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Polity Press.
29. Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger, Trans.; F. Lawrence, Assisting). MIT Press.
30. Haddon, M. (2020). Süper iyi günler ya da Christopher Boone’un sıradışı hayatı (Ö. Doğangün, Çev.). Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
31. Hall, A. (2012). Disability and modern fiction: Faulkner, Morrison, Coetzee and the Nobel Prize for Literature. Palgrave Macmillan.
32. Honneth, A. (1995). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts (J. Anderson, Trans.). MIT Press.
33. Hughes, B., & Paterson, K. (1997). The social model of disability and the disappearing body: Towards a sociology of impairment. Disability & Society, 12(3), 325-340. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599727209
34. Iser, W. (1978). The act of reading: A theory of aesthetic response. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
35. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). Routledge.
36. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
37. Lefebvre, H. (2004). Rhythmanalysis: Space, time and everyday life (S. Elden & G. Moore, Trans.). Continuum.
38. Levinas, E. (1998). Otherwise than being, or beyond essence (A. Lingis, Trans.). Duquesne University Press.
39. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2002). Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.). Routledge.
40. Mitchell, D. T., & Snyder, S. L. (2000). Narrative prosthesis: Disability and the dependencies of discourse. University of Michigan Press.
41. Nazlı, K. (2025). Bingöl’de engelli olmak: Sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri. Bingöl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 30, 450–468. https://doi.org/10.29029/busbed.1689754
42. Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. Macmillan Education.
43. Ong, W. J. (2002). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word (2nd ed.). Routledge.
44. Online Etymology Dictionary. (2024). 04 02, 2024 tarihinde Online Etymology Dictionary: https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=disabled
45. Ragin, C. C. (2014). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies (With a new introduction). University of California Press.
46. Rancière, J. (1999). Disagreement: Politics and philosophy (J. Rose, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
47. Ricoeur, P. (1984). Time and narrative (Vol. 1) (K. McLaughlin & D. Pellauer, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.
48. Ricoeur, P. (1992). Oneself as another (K. Blamey, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.
49. Russell, B. (1919). Introduction to mathematical philosophy. George Allen & Unwin.
50. Siebers, T. (2010). Disability aesthetics. University of Michigan Press.
51. Şeker, B. (2025). Metinsel iç içelikten metinler arasılığa: Benzeşik yazılar ayrışık okumalar. Bingöl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 29, 54-63. https://doi.org/10.29029/busbed.1578507.
52. Turner, V. W. (1977). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Wellek, R., & Warren, A. (1949). Theory of literature. Harcourt, Brace & Company.
53. World Health Organization. (2022). Global report on health equity for persons with disabilities. World Health Organization.