İtaatsizliğin Toplumsal Gösterimleri Üzerinden ‘Gençliğin’ Dönüşümü: Türk Televizyon Dizilerine Eleştirel Göstergebilimsel Bir Bakış

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 15, 71 - 90, 01.01.2018

Emel Kökpınar Kaya

Öz

Bu çalışma ‘gençliğin’ inşasına ve onun televizyon dizilerindeki toplumsal gösterimlerine odaklanmaktadır. Çalışma, Türk televizyon dizilerinde ‘gençliğin’ nasıl gösterildiğini ve belli anlamlamalarla nasıl özellikler ile yüklendiğini tartışır. inşasının hegemonik bir anlamlama sürecinin sonucu olduğunu kabul eder. Bir başka deyişle, çalışma belli başlı göstergeler üzerinden Türk televizyon dizilerinin gençliği nasıl inşa ettiğini ve gençliği nasıl dönüştürdüklerini incelemeye teşebbüs eder. Bu süreç belli başlı göstergeler ile toplumun kabul edilmiş düşüncelerinin, böylelikle de toplumsal gösterimlerinin yapılandırıldığını ve dönüştürüldüğünü gösterir. Bu çalışmada, bir Türk televizyon dizisindeki, Güneşi Beklerken, anlam yaratma süreçlerine değinerek itiatsizliğin gösterimi üzerinden ‘gençliğin’ inşası ve dönüşümüne dair bir yorumcu ve eleştirel çözümleme ve anlayış sunmayı amaçlamaktayım. Çalışmada Serge Moscovici’s 1984, 1988, 2000, 2001 tarafından ortaya konulan toplumnsal gösterimler ve Roland Barthes’ın 1977 görsel retoriğe ve düz-anlam/ yan-anlam ikiliğine dair düşünceleri üzerinden geçilmektedir. Bu çerçevede, gençlik kimliğini ortaya koyan dilsel ve sosyo-kültürel kodların televizyon dizilerindeki gösterimler yolu ile ‘gençliğin’ anlamını belirleyen yeni kodlarla değiştirildiğini tartışmaktayım

Anahtar Kelimeler

Gençlik, Toplumsal Gösterimler, Anlamlama, Görsel Retorik, İtaatsizlik

The Transformation of ‘Youth’ Through the Social Representations of Disobedience: A Critical Semiotic Overlook Towards Turkish TV Series

Öz

The present study focuses on the construction of ‘youth’ and its social representations in Turkish television series. It discusses how Turkish TV series represent ‘youth’ and how they feature youth with specific significations. In other words, the study attempts to investigate how Turkish TV series construct youth and make a transformation of youth through certain signs. This process implies that through particular signs particular taken-for-granted ideas of society, therefore social representations, are constructed and transformed. In the present study, by pointing out the meaningmaking processes in a Turkish television series, Güneşi Beklerken, I attempt to offer an interpretative and critical analysis and an understanding on the construction and transformation of ‘youth’ through the representation of disobedience. The study traverses Serge Moscovici’s 1984, 1988, 2000, 2001 ideas on social representations and Roland Barthes’s 1977 ideas on visual rhetoric and denotationconnotation dichotomy 1964 . In this framework, I discuss how linguistic and socio-cultural codes that establish youth identity are replaced with new codes determining the meaning of ‘youth’ via its representations in television series

Anahtar Kelimeler

Youth, Social Representations, Signification, Visual Rhetoric, Disobedience

Kaynakça

• • Aksel Yağcı, S. C. (2011). Beyaz camın yerlileri: Dokunaklı öyküler-Dokunulmaz gerçeklikler. Kocaeli: Umuttepe Yayınları.
• • Barthes, R. (1964). Elements of semiology. New York: Hill and Wang.
• • Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
• • Barthes, R. (1977). Rhetoric of the image. Image-Music-Text. New York: Hill and Wang.
• • Baudrillard, J. (1981) Simulacra and simulation. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
• • Baudrillard, J. (1985). The masses: The implosion of the social in the media, New literary history, 16 (3), 589.
• • Bell, A. (1991). The language of news media. Oxford: Blackwell.
• • Chilton, P. & Mihail, I. (1993). Metaphor in political discourse: the case of the ‘common European house’.
• Discourse & Society, 4 (1), 7-31. • Chilton, P. & Lakoff, G. (1995). Foreign Policy by Metaphor. In C. Schäffner & A. L. Wenden (Eds),
• Language and Peace (pp. 37-60). Aldershot: Dartmouth. • Chouliaraki, L. (2000). Political discourse in the news: democratizing responsibility or aestheticizing politics? Discourse & Society, 11(3), 293-314.
• • Cotter, C. (2001), Discourse and media. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 416-436). Oxford: Blackwell.
• • De Saussure, F. (1959). Course in general linguistics. New York: Philosophical Library.
• • De Saussure, F. (1998). Genel Dilbilim Dersleri. (Trans. B. Vardar) İstanbul: Multilingual.
• • Ensink, T. (2006). Pragmatic aspects of televised texts: A single case study of the intervention of a televised documentary program in party politics. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(2), 230-249.
• • Fairclough, Norman (1995a), Critical Discourse Analysis. Boston: Addison Wesley.
• • Fairclough, Norman (1995b), Media discourse. London: Arnold.
• • Fairclough, Norman (1995c), Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• • Fowler, R. (1981). Power. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis: Volume 1: Disciplines of discourse (pp. 61-82). London: Academic Press.
• • Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. New York: Routledge.
• • Hjelmslev, L. (1963). Prolegomena to a theory of language. (Trans. M. F. Witfield) Wisconsin: Wisconsin University Press.
• • Hoijer, B. (2011). Social Representations Theory. Nordicom review 32, 3-16.
• • Kökpınar Kaya, E. (2017). Dilsel kod ve gösterge arayüzünde ‘zengin’ ve ‘fakir’ inşası: Bir yerli televizyon dizisinin eleştirel söylem çözümlemesi. Sosyoloji Konferansları, 56. 41-64.
• • Kövecses, Z. (2005) Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• • Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson (2003) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
• • Metz, C. (1974). Film language: A Semiotics of the cinema. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• • Moscovici, S. (1984). The phenomenon of social representations. In R. M. Farr & S. Moscovici (Eds),
• Social Representations (pp. 3-69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Moscovici, S. (1988). Notes towards a description of social representations. European journal of social psychology 18, 211-250.
• • Moscovici, S. (2000). Social representations: Explorations in social psychology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• • Moscovici, S. (2001). Why a theory of social representations? In K. Deaux & G. Philogéne Eds),
• Representations of the social (pp. 8- 35). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. • Moscovici, S. (2007). Psychoanalysis. Its image and its public. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
• • Pezzini, I. (2017). Semiotics as a critical discourse: Roland Barthes’s Mythologies. In K. Bankov P.
• Cobley (Eds.), Semiotics and its masters. Boston: Walter de Gruyter. • Pickering, M. (2001) Stereotyping. The politics of representation. Houndsmills: Palgrave.
• • Reisigl, M. & Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.),
• Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. • Sezgin, N. (2007). Bir popüler kültür örneği olarak Kurtlar Vadisi’nde erkek kimliğinin sunumu. İstanbul: Siyah-beyaz Kitap.
• • Thornborrow, J. (1999). Language and the media. In L. Thomas & S. Wareing (Eds.), Language, society and power. London: Routledge.
• • Tunç, A. (2010). Her Türkün kullandığı yerli malı: Diziler. Birikim Dergisi, 256/257, 173-191.
• • Ünür, E. (2015). Yerli dizilerdeki kimlik kalıpları. Konya: Eğitim Kitapevi.
• • van Dijk, T. A. (1988). News analysis: Case studies of international and national news in the press.
• Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum. • van Dijk, T. (1997). Discourse as social interaction. London: Sage.
• • van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology, a multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage.
• • van Dijk, T. A. (2000). Ideology and discourse. A Multidisciplinary introduction. Retrieved from http:// www.discourses.org/UnpublishedArticles/Ideology%20and%20discourse.pdf
• • Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical Discourse Analysis. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin & H. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 352-371). Oxford: Blackwell.
• • van Leeuwen, T. (2009). Discourse as the recontextualization of social practice: A guide. In R. Wodak &
• M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 144-161). London: Sage. • van Leeuwen, T. (1996). The representation of social actors. In C. R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard
• (Eds.) Texts and practices, readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 32-70). London: Routledge. • Vardar, B. (2002). Dilbilim terimleri sözlüğü. İstanbul: Multilingual.
• • Veltri, G. A. (2015). Social semiotics and social representations. In G. Sammut, E. Andreouli, G. Gaskell and J. Valsiner, The Cambridge handbook of social representations (pp. 234-249). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• • Wodak, R. 1999. “The Discursive Construction of National Identity”. Discursive Construction of National
• Identity. Editörler: Wodak, R., de Cillia,R., Reisigl, M., Liebhart, K. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. • Wodak, R. 2009. “The Semiotics of Racism. A Critical Discourse-Historical Analysis”. Discourse, Of
• Course. Editör: Renkema, J. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. • Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (2001). Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage. Appendix 1 Episode 1 (Part 1-05:35-07:12)