ASSEMBLY AS A THEORY OF SOCIOLOGICAL CONCEPTION

Abstract

How any social issue will be discussed or with what kind of modeling form the discussed plane will be grasped constitutes the academic context of sociology. When the methodological surface that the theory will conceptually obtain from the social is considered together with the complexity of the social, we believe that a new and useful theory will pave the way for the interpretation of the issues. In this study, where conceptualizations such as “becoming”, “theory of multiplicity”, “abstract machine”, “persona”, “deterritorialization” are proposed, there is no doubt that a useful analysis will offer a new method form with which we can grasp social structures. In this respect, it is certain that this approach, which can be summarized as assemblage theory and includes the concepts in question, will contribute to the academic literature. In fact, we have to say that the methods that imitate each other do not currently offer sufficient sociological inferences in understanding the new surfaces of the social (digital, abstract, etc.). In fact, our main purpose in the study is to make room for becomings in thinking about the social together with assemblage theory within the sociological framework.

Keywords

• Assamblage,
• Becoming,
• Persona,
• Deleuze,

BİR SOSYOLOJİK KAVRAMA TEORİSİ OLARAK ASAMBLAJ

Öz

Herhangi bir toplumsal konunun nasıl tartışılacağı ya da tartışılan düzlemin ne tür bir modelleme biçimi ile kavranacağı sosyoloji biliminin akademik bağlamını oluşturur. Teorinin sosyal olandan kavramsal olarak elde edileceği metodolojik yüzey, toplumsal olanın karmaşıklığı ile birlikte düşünüldüğünde yeni ve kullanışlı bir teorinin, meselelerin yorumlanmasının önünü açacağı kanaatindeyiz. “Oluş”, “çokluk teorisi”, “soyut makine”, “persona”, “yersiz-yurtsuzlaşma” gibi kavramsallaştırmaların önerildiği bu çalışmada, kullanışlı bir analizin toplumsal yapılanmaları kavrayabileceğimiz yeni bir yöntem biçimi sunacağı kuşku götürmez. Bu açıdan asamblaj teorisi olarak özetlenebilecek ve söz konusu kavramları da içine alan bu yaklaşımın akademik literatüre katkı sunacağı muhakkaktır. Öyle ki birbirini taklit eden yöntemlerin sosyal olanın yeni yüzeylerini (dijital, soyut vb) anlama konusunda halihazırda yeterli sosyolojik çıkarımları sunmadığını söylemek zorundayız. Zaten çalışmadaki esas amacımız da sosyolojik çerçevede asamblaj teorisiyle birlikte toplumsal olanı düşünmede oluşlara yer açmaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Assamblaj,
• Persona,
• Oluş,
• Deleuze,

Kaynakça

1. Anderson, Ben ve McFarlane, Colin. “Assemblage and Geography.” Area 43, no 2 (2011): 124-127. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2011.01004.x.
2. Aydın, Şefika ve Şentürk, Murat. “Asamblaj Kavramı ile Aktör-Ağ Teorisi Arasındaki Bağlantıların İncelenmesi: Asamblaj Kentçiliği.” TESAM Akademi Dergisi 9, no 1 (2022): 289-315.
3. Bennett, Jane. Vibrant Matter A Political Ecology of Things. Duke University Press, 2010. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv111jh6w.
4. DeLanda, Manuel. A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Comlexity. London: Continuum, 2006.
5. Deleuze, Gilles. Difference and Repetition. Çeviren Paul Patton. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001.
6. Deleuze, Gilles ve Guattari, Félix. Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Çeviren Robert Hurly. US: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.
7. Deleuze, Gilles ve Guattari, Félix. Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature. Çeviren Dana Polan. Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1986.
8. Deleuze, Gilles ve Guattari, Félix. What Is Philosophy?. Çeviren Hugh Tomlinson ve Graham Burchell. Columbia University Press, 1994.

9. Deleuze, Gilles ve Guattari, Félix. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalizm and Schizophrenia. London: University of Minnesota Press, 2005.
10. Deleuze, Gilles ve Parnet, Claire. Introduction to Dialogues, vii-xiii. New York: Columbia University Press, 1987.
11. Deleuze, Gilles ve Parnet, Claire. Dialogues II. Çeviren Hugh Tomlinson ve Barbara Habberjam. New York: Continuum, 2006.
12. Elias, Norbert. The History of Manners. Oxford: Blackwell, 1978.
13. Elias, Norbert. The Civilizing Process. Oxford: Blackwell, 1994.
14. Gabriel, Norman ve Mennell, Stephan. “Handing over the Torch: Intergenerational Processes in Figurational Sociology.” The Sociological Review 5 no 1 (2011): 5-23.
15. Harman, Graham. “The importance of Bruno Latour for Phiosophy.” Cultural Studies Review 13 no 1(2007): 31-49.
16. Hayles, N. Katherine. “(Un)masking the Agent: Distributed Cognition in Stanislaw Lem’s ‘The Mask’.” İçinde Accelerating Possession: Global Futures of Property and Personhood, editörler Bill Maurer ve Gabriele Schwab, New York: Columbia University Press, 2006.
17. Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social: An İntroduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
18. Marcus, George E. ve Saka, Erkan. “Assemblage.” Theory, Culture & Society 23 no 101 (2006). doi:10.1177/0263276406062573.
19. Nail, Thomas. “What is an Assemblage?” SubStance 46, no 1 (2027): 21-37.
20. Ong, Aihwa ve Stephen, J. Collier. Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems. London: Blackwell, 2004.
21. Puar, Jaspir. K. Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Duke University Press, 2007.
22. Robinow, Paul. Anthropos Today. NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003.
23. Schönher, Mathias. “Deleuze And Guattarı’s Conceptual Persona Revısıted: The Lıst Of Character Traıts As A Table Of Categorıes.” Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy 17, no 3 (2021): 309-339.
24. Stewart, Kathleen. Ordinary Impacts: The Affective Life of US Public Culture. unpublished MS, 2004.
25. Thomas, Phil Crockett. “Crime as an Assemblage.” Journal of Theoretical & Philosophical Criminology 12 (2020): 68-79.
26. Venn, Couze. “A Note on Assemblage.” Theory, Culture & Society 23, no: 2-3 (2006): 107-108.
27. Wiltshire, Kelly D. “Assemblage Thinking.” Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology (2018): 1-5. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51726-1_2704-1.
28. Yu, Jae Eon. “The use of Deleuze's Theory of Assemblage for Process-Oriented Methodology.” Historical Social Research, 38 no: 2 (2013): 196-217.