Sivil Toplum Kuruluşlarında Çalışan Toplum Çevirmenlerine Bourdieu’nun Sosyal Kuramı Işığında Bir Bakış

Öz

Son dokuz yılda Suriye iç savaşından dolayı yaklaşık 3,5 milyon Suriyeli Türkiye’ye sığınmıştır. İki toplum bölgesel ve kültürel olarak birbirine yakın olsa da aralarında iletişim engellerine yol açan dil farklılığı mevcuttur. Dil engeline yönelik başta mülteci nüfusun fazla olduğu şehirlerdeki sağlık kuruluşları olmak üzere diğer devlet kurumları ve mahkemelerde toplum çevirmenleri hizmet vermektedirler. Ayrıca, Sığınmacılar ve Göçmenlerle Dayanışma Derneği (SGDD) gibi sınırlı sayıdaki sivil toplum kuruluşu da tercüman istihdam etmektedir. Türkiye büyük bir göç dalgası ile ancak son zamanlarda karşılaşan bir ülkedir ve ülkede göçmen politikaları konusunda henüz yeterli adımlar atılamamıştır. Bu nedenle, mültecilere sağlanan toplum çevirmenliği hizmetleri yeterli düzeyde gelişmemiştir ve yeterli düzeyde eğitim almış tercümanlar da oldukça azdır. Bu bağlamda, bu çalışmada SGDD’de çalışan tercümanların mesleki faaliyetleri, tercümanların kendi mesleki algıları ile çeviri faaliyetlerini etkileyen kurumsal koşullar üzerinden incelenecektir. Tercümanları bu işe yönelten saikler ve mesleki faaliyetleri sırasında kendileri için mevcut olan/olmayan sermaye türleri Pierre Bourdieu'nun habitus, sermaye ve illusio kavramları ışığında tartışılacaktır. İncelemede tercümanlar ile gerçekleştirilen mülakatların yanı sıra kurum yetkilileri ile gerçekleştirilen mülakatlar ve kurumsal dokümanlar veri kaynakları olarak kullanılmaktadır. Var olan dil becerilerini kullanmak ve mültecilere yardım etmek gibi saiklerle SGDD’de çalışmaya başlayan tercümanların sınırlı da olsa mültecilerle kurdukları sosyal bağlar ve diğer meslek grupları karşısındaki sınırlı yetkileri mesleki faaliyetleri kapsamında öne çıkan durumlardır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• toplum çevirmenleri
• habitus
• capital
• illusio
• sivil toplum kuruluşu

A Bourdieusian Perspective on the Public Service Interpreters Working at the Non-Governmental Organizations

Öz

Due to the Syrian civil war, nearly 3.5 million Syrians have taken refuge in Turkey in the last nine years. Although Syrians and Turks are regionally and culturally close to each other, there is the linguistic difference, leading to communication barriers between them. Public service interpreters are recruited to meet the communication needs in healthcare institutions, especially in provinces with the highest Syrian populations, and in other state institutions and courts. Furthermore, a limited number of non-governmental organizations, such as Association for Solidarity with Asylum Seekers and Migrants (ASAM), recruit interpreters. Turkey is a country which has faced flows of refugees only recently, and thus adequate steps regarding immigration policies have not been taken yet in the country. Therefore, public service interpreting for refugees has not developed sufficiently, and the number of well-trained interpreters among those providing service is quite low. In this regard, this study aims to examine the professional trajectory of the interpreters working at ASAM through the interpreters' professional perceptions and the institutional conditions affecting their interpreting activities. More specifically, based on Pierre Bourdieu's concepts of habitus, capital and illusio, the motives that have driven the interpreters to the job they are engaged in and the forms of capital (un)available to them in their work trajectory will be discussed. To this end, the interviews conducted with the interpreters, the interviews with ASAM officials and the institutional documents are used as data sources in the discussion. Within the frame of the professional trajectory of the interpreters, who have been engaged in NGO interpreting with the motives of using their available cultural and linguistic competence and of helping refugees, the social bonds developed with refugees, albeit in a restricted manner, and their limited authority against other professional groups emerge as the leading issues. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• public service interpreters
• habitus
• capital
• illusio
• non-governmental organization

Kaynakça

1. Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı (AFAD). (2017). Türkiye’deki Suriyelilerin demografik görünümü, yaşam koşulları ve gelecek beklentilerine yönelik saha araştırması. Retrieved May 28,2018, from https://www.afad.gov.tr/upload/Node/25337/xfiles/17a- Turkiye_deki_Suriyelilerin_Demografik_Gorunumu_Yasam_Kosullari_ve_Gelecek_Beklentilerine_Yonelik_Saha_Arastirmasi_2017.pdf.
2. Angelelli, C. V. (2004). Revisiting the interpreter's role. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
3. Ataman, H. (2015). Mülteci mi, sığınmacı mı, misafir mi? Görüş, 88, 26-33.
4. Barsky, R. (1996). The interpreter as intercultural agent in convention refugee hearings. The Translator, 2(1), 45-63.
5. Biçer, N. (2017). The views of Syrian refugees migrating to Turkey on the Turkish language and culture: Kilis case. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(3), 97-109.
6. Bot, H. (2003). The myth of the uninvolved interpreter interpreting in mental health and the development of a three-person psychology. In L. Brunette, G. L. Bastin, I. Hemlin & H. Clarke (Eds.). The Critical Link 3 (pp. 27-35). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
7. Bourdieu, P. (1986a). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge.
8. Bourdieu, P. (1986b). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.). Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood Press.

9. Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 14-25.
10. Bourdieu, P. (1990a). In other words: Essays towards a reflexive sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
11. Bourdieu, P. (1990b). The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.
12. Bourdieu, P. (1992). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
13. Bourdieu, P. (1993a). The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature. Cambridge: Polity Press.
14. Bourdieu, P. (1993b). Sociology in question. London: Sage Publications.
15. Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action. Oxford: Polity Press.
16. Bourdieu, P. (2000). Pascalian meditations. Cambridge: Polity Press.
17. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
18. Bölükbaş, F. (2016). The language needs analysis of Syrian refugees: İstanbul Sample. The Journal of International Social Research, 9(46), 21-31.
19. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
20. Chesterman, A. (2006). Questions in the sociology of translation. In J. F. Duarte, A. A. Rosa and T. Seruya (Eds). Translation studies at the interface of disciplines (pp. 9-27). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
21. Chesterman, A. (2009). The name and nature of translator studies. Hermes, 42, 13-22.
22. Clifford, A. (2004). Is fidelity ethical? TTR: traduction, terminologie, redaction, 17(2), 89-114.
23. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, London, New Delhi & Singapore: SAGE Publications.
24. Dillioğlu, B. (2015). Suriyeli mültecilerin entegrasyonu: Türkiye’nin eğitim ve istihdam politikaları. Akademik ORTA DOĞU, 10(1), 1-22.
25. Dursun, S. (2018, September 3). 35 yaş üstü Suriyelilerin yüzde 90’ı hâlâ Türkçe öğrenemedi. Gerçek Hayat. Retrieved September 29, 2019, from http://www.gercekhayat.com.tr/kapak/35-yas-ustu-suriyelilerin-yuzde-90i-hala-turkce-ogrenemedi/.
26. Geçici Koruma Yönetmeliği. (2014, October 22). Official gazette (Issue: 29153). Retrieved May 28, 2018, from https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2014/10/20141022-15.htm.
27. Gouanvic, J. M. (2007). Objectivation, réflexivité et traduction: Pour une re-lecture bourdieusienne de la traduction. In M. Wolf and A. Fukari (Eds). Constructing a sociology of translation (pp. 79-92). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
28. Hale, S.B. (2015). Community interpreting. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.). Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies (pp. 65-69). London and New York: Routledge.
29. Hermans, T. (1997). Translation as institution. Translation as intercultural communication. In M. Snell-Hornby, Z. Jettmarová and K. Kaindl (Eds.). Selected papers from the EST congress Prague 1995 (pp. 3-20). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
30. Inghilleri, M. (2003). Habitus, field and discourse: Interpreting as a socially situated activity. Target, 15(2), 243–268.
31. Inghilleri, M. (2005). Mediating zones of uncertainty: Interpreter agency, the interpreting habitus and political asylum adjudication. The Translator, 11(1), 69–85.
32. Roy, C. (2000). Interpreting as a discourse process. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33. Rudvin, M. (2007). Professionalism and ethics in community interpreting: The impact of individualist versus collective group identity on interpreting performance. Interpreting, 9(1), 47–69.
34. Rudvin, M. (2015). Interpreting and professional identity. In H. Mikkelson and R. Jourdenais (Eds.). The Routledge handbook of interpreting (pp. 432-446). London and New York: Routledge.
35. Saldanha, G. & O’Brien, S. (2013). Research methodologies in translation studies. London and New York: Routledge.
36. Sela-Sheffy, R. (2005). How to be a (recognized) translator: Rethinking habitus, norms, and the field of translation. Target, 17(1), 1–26.
37. Simeoni, D. (1998). The pivotal status of the translator’s habitus. Target, 10, 1–39.
38. Standing Committee for Economic and Commercial Cooperation of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (COMCEC). (2016). Forced migration in the OIC member countries: Policy framework adopted by host countries. Retrieved May 28, 2018, from http://www.comcec.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/8-POV-AR.pdf.
39. Şan, F. & Koçlu, S. (2018). Determination of communication problems of the refugees in Sakarya and the need for community interpreting. International Journal of Language Academy, 6(4), 1-16.
40. Turkish Red Crescent Migration & Refugee Services Department. (2018). Syria crisis humanitarian relief operation. Retrieved June 21, 2018, from https://www.kizilay.org.tr/Upload/Dokuman/Dosya/17274319_may-2018-syria-crisis-humanitarian-relief-operation.pdf.
41. Ulusoy, L. & Rezaei Osalou, A. (2019). [Tercümanlık ve Tercümanla Çalışma Alanlarında Açıklanması Gereken 14 Kritik Bilgi]. Unpublished raw data.
42. Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction. London & New York: Longman.
43. Wolf, M. (2007). Introduction: The emergence of a sociology of translation. In M. Wolf and A. Fukari (Eds). Constructing a sociology of translation (pp. 1-36). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
44. Yücel, A., Utas, C., Luchsinger, G., Kavlak, İ.V., Kristjansdottir, İ.B. & Freizer, S. (2018). Needs assessment of Syrian women and girls under temporary protection status in Turkey. Ankara: UN Women & ASAM. Retrieved September 29, 2019, from https://www2.unwomen.org/-/media/field%20office%20eca/attachments/publications/country/turkey/the%20needs%20assessmentengwebcompressed.pdf?la=en&vs=3139.