Disiplinler ve Post-Disipliner Tarihçeler: Kuram, Çeviri ve Kültürlerötesilik

Yıl 2023, , 387 - 406, 02.05.2023

Hande Birkalan-gedik

https://doi.org/10.22559/folklor.2429

Öz

Bu makalede, disipliner tarihlerin oluşturulmasında “gezgin kuram”ın (traveling
theory) rolünü ele alıyorum. En basit ifadeyle, “gezgin kuram,” “bir kuramın gerçek
hayattaki özgün ifade anından koparılarak daha sonraki bir zaman ve mekâna
uygulanması” olarak tanımlanabilir (Said, 1983: 226). Makale bu varsayıma eleştirel
yaklaşarak, kuramların disipliner arasındaki dolaşımlarının disipliner tarihlerin
oluşturulmasındaki rolüne odaklanıyor. İlkin çeviri metinlerle ilgili atlanan
konuların önemini ve bunların kültürlerötesilik kavramının gelişimindeki etkilerini
post-disipliner tarihçeler bağlamında ele alıyorum. Ayrıca, disipliner tarihçiler için
faydalı analizler sağlayabilecek olan yeni bakış açıları, örneğin kuramların birden
fazla rota izlemeleri, gecikmeleri ya da bir başka kültürde veya disiplindeki alımlama
biçimlerinin de önemini vurguluyorum. Said’in aksine, çoğul olarak kullan-
dığım “gezgin kuramlar” bizi dil ve bilgi arasındaki ilişkiyi yeniden düşünmeye ve
bilginin çeviri yoluyla nasıl yaratıldığını ve dönüştürüldüğünü anlamaya yöneltmektedir.
Çevirinin, gezgin kuramcıların ve kavramların, farklı diller ve disiplinler
arasındaki ve kültürlerötesi bağlamlardaki yörüngeleri atlanamaz. Metinler dinamik
çeviri süreçlerine girdikçe ortaya çıkan gecikmeler, reddetmeler ya da sahiplenmeler
disiplinlerin içsel dinamikleri kadar disiplinlerarası koşullar tarafından
da belirlenir. Böylelikle, bir kuramın “seyahati” hem farklı aktörler, coğrafyalar
ve zamanlar arasında iletişim alanları yaratır, hem de kuram bu aktörler tarafından
yaratılmış olur. Disipliner bilgi, kelimelerin, fikirlerin, kavramların, kuramların ve
kuramcıların hareketiyle gelişir. Halkbilimciler, özellikle alanda kültür çevirmenleri
olarak çalışırken, yayınlarında bilgiyi metinselleştirirken ya da çalışmalarını
konferanslarda sunarken, fikirlerin, kuramların ve kavramların dolaşımını sağlarlar.
“Gezgin kuramlar” farklı perspektiflerin sınırları nasıl aşabildiğini ve akışkan
disipliner bağlamlara nasıl uyarlanabildiğini anlamamıza ve post-disipliner tarihçeler
yazabilmemize olanak tanıyan önemli bir araç olarak karşımıza çıkar

Anahtar Kelimeler

gezgin kuram", post-disipliner disiplin tarihçeleri, halkbilimi tarihi

Disciplines and Post-Disciplinary Histories: Theory, Translation, and Transculturality

Öz

This article addresses the role of “traveling theory” in the making of disciplinary
histories by departing from and critically reflecting on the concept. In simple terms,
Said defines “traveling theory” as “a theory divorced from its original real-life
moment of articulation and applied to a later time and place” (1983, 226). Although
Said revisited his earlier formulations and emphasized the crucial role context plays
in “traveling theory,” both in its origins and in its adaptations and modifications at
different destinations (Said 1994), certain aspects of his arguments remained open.
Among other issues, Said was criticized for not adequately considering the central
role of translation in facilitating or thwarting the theory’s travels.
I take this important concern as one of the anchor points of this article and highlight
some of the evaded issues about translated texts in traveling theories and their
impact on transculturation. Rather than sticking to the singularity of the original
term “traveling theory,” I employ the term in the plural strategically and emphasize
that theories can take multiple routes. As such, I evoke the images of assemblage (or
agencement, in French)—a concept that frames social complexity through fluidity,
exchangeability, and connectivity; and rhizome—a concept in post-structuralist
theory, that refers to non-linear roots and networks. Taken together these images
as theoretical models can prove useful for disciplinary historians, as ideas and
concepts, taken up by different disciplines, can be mutated, and eventually become
something completely different.
First, by tackling issues of translation and considering delays, omissions,
rejections, and appropriations of theories, I underline that texts enter dynamic
translation processes. Travel itself generates contact (and often, conflict) zones
between different actors, geographies, and histories—a mediated transference
between “source” and “host” languages and subversions of such delineations.
Thus, the process of translation becomes a creative act in itself, one that produces
new meanings and insights. It challenges us to rethink the relationship between
language and knowledge, and to consider how knowledge is created and
transformed through translation.
Second, I consider the role of theory in disciplining fields, in particular, in
“disciplining folkloristics.” I analyze certain key texts, theories, and theorists in
folklore. In the face of recent discussions on “critical folkloristics,” (Otero ve M.
Rivera 2021), I suggest that writing disciplinary histories against the backdrop of
recent global developments, such as Black Lives Matter, COVID-19 protests, and
other post-colonial reading human reactions to social realities, is both possible
and necessary. I also underline that mistakenly construed boundaries between
academic and public folklore need to be rethought and reworked. Instead, I
propose an integrated, activism-oriented, post-disciplinary traveling theories, from
which folklore studies will greatly benefit.
Last, I take transculturation as an effective tool to understand theory’s role in postdisciplinary
histories. Transculturation is a term owed to Cuban anthropologist
Fernando Ortiz (1940), who questioned the common view that cultural encounters
work only in one way. Instead, he suggests that they are reciprocal processes in
which some cultural characteristics may be lost, while new elements emerge.

Anahtar Kelimeler

travelling theory, post-discipliner histories, history of folklore

Kaynakça

• Abrahams, R.D. (1989). Review: Bakhtin, the critics, and folklore. The Journal of American Folklore, 102(404): 202-206. https://doi.org/10.2307/540685
• Abrahams, R. D. (2005). Everyday life: A poetics of vernacular practices. University of Pennsylvania Press. https://doi.org/10.9783/9780812200997
• Arato, A. (1972). Lukacs’ theory of reification. Telos 11: 25-66. https://doi.org/10.3817/0372011025
• Azadovskij, M. K. (1926). Eine sibirische märchenerzählerin. Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, Folklore Fellows FFC 68.
• Bachmann-Medick, D. (2006). Cultural turns: Neuorientierungen in den Kulturwissenschaften. Rowohlt.
• Bachmann-Medick, D. (2012). Translation – A concept and model for the study of culture. Travelling concepts for the study of culture içinde (B. Neumann ve A. Nünning, Çev.) 23-43. de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110227628.23
• Bachmann-Medick, D. (2014a). The trans/national study of culture: A translational perspective. The trans/national study of culture: A translational perspective (D. Bachmann-Medick, Ed.). 1-22. De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110333800.1
• Bachmann-Medick, D. (2014b). From hybridity to translation. reflections on travelling concepts. The trans/national study of culture: A translational perspective içinde. (D. Bachmann-Medick, Ed.) 119-136. De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110333800.119
• Bachmann-Medick, D. (2014c). The trans/national study of culture: A translational perspective. De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110333800.
• Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). Dialogic imagination: Four essays. (M. Holquist, Ed., C. Emerson ve M. Holquist, Çev.) University of Texas Press.
• Bakhtin, M. M. (1984) [1968]. Rabelais and his world (H. Islowsky, Çev.) Indiana University Press.
• Başgöz, İ. (1992). Sibirya’dan bir masal anası. Kültür Bakanlığı Halk Kültürlerini Araştırma ve Geliştirme Genel Müdürlüğü; 182. Halk Edebiyatı ve Tiyatrosu Dizisi; 40.
• Bauman, R. (2004). A world of others’ words: Cross-cultural perspectives on intertextuality. Blackwell.
• Bausinger, H. (1966). Zur Kritik der Folklorismuskritik. Populus Revisus. Beiträge zur Erforschung der Gegenwart içinde. (H. Bausinger, Ed.) 6175. Tübinger Vereinigung für Volkskunde e.V.
• Bausinger, H. (1991). Zum Begriff des Folklorismus. Der blinde Hund. Anmerkungen zur Alltagskultur içinde (H. Bausinger, Ed.) 92-103. Verlag Schwäbisches Tagblatt.
• Ben-Amos, D., Glassie, H., & Oring, E. (Eds.) (2020). Folklore concepts: Histories and critiques. Indiana University Press.
• Bendix, R. (1997). In search of authenticity: The formation of folklore studies. University of Madison Press.
• Bendix, R. (2012). From Volkskunde to the ‘field of many names’: Folklore Studies in German-Speaking Europe since 1945. A companion to folklore içinde. (R. Bendix ve G. Hasan-Rokem, Ed.). 364-390. Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118379936.ch19
• Birkalan, H. A. (1995). Pertev Naili Boratav and his contributions to Turkish folklore [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi] Indiana University.
• Birkalan, H. (2000). Henry Glassie ve maddi kültürün öyküsü. folklor/edebiyat 24(4): 135-144.
• Birkalan, H. (2001). Pertev Naili Boratav and Turkish university events. Turkish Studies Association Bulletin, 25(1): 39-60.
• Birkalan-Gedik, Hande. (2021). Bir bilim anıtı ve yurtseverin ardından…Mehmet İlhan Başgöz (1921- 2021). folklor/edebiyat. 27(3)/107: 955-958.
• Birkalan-Gedik, H., Cantauw, C., Carstensen, J., Schmoll, F. & Timm, E. (Eds.). (2021). Detmold, September 1969. Die Arbeitstagung der dgv im Rückblick. International and comparative perspectives on the worlds and words of Volkskunde. Waxmann.
• Boratav, P. N. (1946). Halk hikâyeleri ve halk hikâyeciliği. Millî Eğitim Basımevi.
• Boratav, P. N. (1970). Une première ébauche de catalogue des jeux français: Analyse d’un ensemble de documents sur le folklore enfantin. Arts et traditions populaires. 18e Année (1/3): 195-271. Boratav, P. N. (1975). Türkische Volkserzählungen und die Erzählerkunst (W. Eberhard, Çev.) Chinese Association for Folklore.
• Briggs, C. (2021a). Disciplining folkloristics. Unlearning: Rethinking poetics, pandemics, and the politics of knowledge içinde (C. Briggs, Ed.) 53-65. Utah State University Press.
• Briggs, C. (2021b). Unlearning: Rethinking poetics, pandemics, and the politics of knowledge. Utah State University Press.
• Brückner, W. (1971). Falkensteiner Protokolle: Institut f. Volkskunde.
• Çetik, M. (1998). Üniversitede cadı kazanı. Tarih Vakfı.
• Çetik, M. (2019). Pertev Naili Boratav: Bir akademisyen ve düşünce adamı. İletişim.
• Chakrabarty, D. (2009). Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial thought and historical difference. Princeton University Press.
• Chakrabarty, D. (2012). Place and displaced categories, or how we translate ourselves into global histories of the modern. The trans/national study of culture: A translational perspective. (D. Bachmann- Medick, Ed.) (ss: 53-68). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110333800.53
• Clifford, J. (1989). Notes on travel and theory. Inscriptions 5.5 (29): 11. https://culturalstudies.ucsc. edu/inscriptions/volume-5/james-clifford/
• Czarniawska, B., & Sevón, G. (Eds.) (2005). Global ideas: How ideas, objects, and practices travel in the global economy. Liber and Copenhagen Business School Press.
• Dorson, R. M. (1963). Current folklore theories. Current Anthropology 1(4): 93-112.
• Dorson, R. M. (1969). British folklorists: A history. University of Chicago Press.
• Dundes, A. (1962). The morphology of North American Indian folktales. PhD Dissertation, Indiana University Folklore Program.
• Dundes, A. (1964). The morphology of North American Indian folktales. FF Communications 195, Folklore Fellows. Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
• Eco, U. (1992). Die erzählerischen strukturen im Werk Ian Flemings. Apokalyptiker und integrierte: Zur kritischen kritik der massenkultur içinde. (M. Looser, Çev.). 273-312. Fischer.
• Eggeling, T., & Bendix, R. (Eds.) (2004). Namen und was sie bedeuten: Zur Namensdebatte im Fach Volkskunde. Schmerse Verlag.
• Fell, J. L. (1977). Vladimir Propp in Hollywood. Film Quarterly 30(3): 19-28. https:// doi.org/10.2307/1211770
• Foucault, M. (1977). Surveillance et punir: Naissance de la prison. Gallimard.
• Geiger, K., Jeggle, U., & Korff, G. (Eds.). (1970). Abschied vom Volksleben. Tübinger Vereinigung für Volkskunde e.V. http://dx.doi.org/10.15496/publikation-64495
• Glassie, H. (1993a). Turkish traditional art today. Indiana University Press.
• Glassie, H. (1993b). Günümüzde geleneksel Türk sanatı (Y. Oğuzertem ve S. Oğuzertem, Çev.) Indiana University Turkish Studies Program.
• Glassie, H. (2020). The project. Folklore concepts: Histories and critiques. (D. Ben-Amos, H. Glassie ve E. Oring, Eds.). ix-xiv. Indiana University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv12sdz2s
• Günay, U. (1975). Elazığ masalları: İnceleme. Atatürk Üniversitesi Basımevi.
• Haring, L. (2008). America’s antitheoretical folkloristics. Journal of Folklore Research (Grand Theory Special Issue), 45(1): 1-9. https://doi.org/10.2979/grandtheory.0.0.03
• Haring, L. (ed.). (2016). Grand theory in folkloristics. Indiana University Press Encounters: Explorations in folklore and ethnomusicology series.
• Holquist, M. (1982). Bakhtin and Rabelais: Theory as praxis. Boundary 2, 11(1/2): 5-19. https://doi. org/10.2307/303015
• , R., & Bogatyrev, P. (Çev.). (1929). Die Folklore als eine besondere Form des Schaffens. Verzaneling van Opstellen door Oud-Leertingen en befriende vakgenooten (Donum natalicium Schrijnen) içinde. 900-913. [Chartres: Imprimerie Durand. R. Jakobson, I Selected Writings, vol. IV içinde, yeniden basım. The Hague: 1966, 1-15.
• Jakobson, R., & Bogatyrev, P. (Çev.). (1980). Folklore as a special form of creation. (J. M. O’Hara, Çev.) Folklore Forum 13(1): 1-21.
• Kaplan, C. (1996). Traveling theorists: Cosmopolitan diasporas. Questions of travel. postmodern discourses of displacement. (C. Kaplan, Ed.) 101-142. Durham.
• Koselleck, R. (1982). Begriffsgeschichte and social history. Economy and Society 11(4): 409- 427. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085148200000015
• Lukács, G. (1923). Geschichte und Klassenbewußtsein: Studien über marxistische dialektik. Malik- Verlag.
• Lambert, G. (2006). Who’s afraid of Deleuze and Guattari? Continuum International Publishing Group.
• Lynch, R. A. (2010). Foucault’s theory of power. M. Foucault: Key concepts. (D. Taylor, Ed.), 13-26. Acumen Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1017/UPO9781844654734.002
• McDowell, J. H. (2021). Folk, folklore, folkloristics, folklorization: New world terministic screens. Detmold, September 1969 Die Arbeitstagung der dgv im Rückblick International and comparative Carstensen, F. Schmoll & E. Timm, Eds.) 261-272 Waxmann.
• Mills, M. (2020). Introduction: Defining and creating (A) New critical folklore studies. The Journal of American Folklore 133 (530): 383-391. https://doi.org/10.5406/jamerfolk.133.530.0383
• Moser, J., Götz, I. & Ege, M. (Eds.) (2015). Zur situation der Volkskunde 1945–1970. Orientierungen einer Wissenschaft zur Zeit des kalten Krieges. Waxmann.
• Neumann, B., Nünning, A. (Eds.). (2012). Travelling concepts for the study of culture. de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110227628 Noyes, D. (2008). Humble theory. Journal of Folklore Research (Grand Theory Special Issue) 45(1): 37-43.
• Noyes, D. (2016). Humble theory: Folklore’s grasp on social life. Indiana University Press. Ortiz, F. (1940). Del fenómeno social de la transculturación y de su importancia en Cuba. Revista Bimestre Cubana 46(2). http://ffo.cult.cu/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Del_fenomeno_social_de_ la_transculturacion.pdf
• Otero, S. & Martinez-Rivera, M.A. 2021. Theorizing folklore from the margins: Critical and ethical approaches. Indiana University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv21hrhsh
• Öztürkmen, A. (2005). Folklore on trial: Pertev Naili Boratav and the denationalization of Turkish Folklore. Journal of Folklore Research 42(2): 185-216.
• Perry, N. (1995). Travelling theory/nomadic theorizing. Organization 2(1): 35-54. https://doi. org/10.1177/135050849521003 Powlison, P. (1972). The application of Propp’s functional analysis to a Yagua folktale. The Journal of American Folklore 85(335): 3-20. https://doi.org/10.2307/539124
• Pratt, M. L. (1992). Imperial eyes: Travel writing and transculturation. Routledge.
• Propp, V. (1928). Morfologiya skazki. Academia.
• Propp, V. (1958). Morphology of the folktale. (L. Scott, Çev). First English-Language Edition. Indiana University Press.
• Propp, V. (1968). Morphology of the folktale. Second English-Language edition. Austin: Texas. Rifat, M., & Rifat, S. (1985). Masalın biçimbilimi. İş Bankası Kültür.
• Roth, K. (1998). Crossing boundaries: The translation and cultural adaptation of folk narratives. Fabula 39(3-4): 243-255. https://doi.org/10.1515/fabl.1998.39.3-4.243
• Said, E. W. (1983). Traveling theory. The world, the text, and the critic (E. W. Said, Ed.) 226-247 Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Said, E. W. (1994). Travelling theory reconsidered. Critical reconstructions: The relationship of fiction and life içinde (R. M. Polhemus & R B. Henkle, Eds.) 251-268. Stanford University Press.
• Steiner, P. (1982). The Prague school: Selected writings, 1929-1946. University of Texas Press. Welz, G. (2009). Multiple modernities: The transnationalization of cultures. Transcultural English studies: Theories, fictions, realities içinde. (F. Schulze-Engler & S. Helff, Eds.) ss: 37–58. Rodopi. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789042028845_003.
• Welz, G. (2009). Multiple modernities: The transnationalization of cultures. Transcultural English studies: Theories, fictions, realities içinde. (F. Schulze-Engler & S. Helff, Eds.) ss: 37–58. Rodopi. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789042028845_003