Sosyolojide yeni ontolojik sorgulamalar ve ekolojik bağların yeniden inşası

Öz

Küresel çevre sorunları dayanıklılık kavramını insan-merkezci sınırların ötesine taşıyan yeni bir perspektif gerektirmektedir. Bruno Latour, Manuel DeLanda ve Donna Haraway gibi düşünürlerden beslenerek doğa-kültür düalizmini reddeden bu perspektif dayanıklılığı çok-türlü ağlar ve karşılıklı bağımlılık üzerinden tanımlar. DeLanda’nın realist ontolojisinin toplumsalın ve ekolojik varoluşun dinamik bileşimler/kümeleşmeler (asamblajlar) hâlinde var olduğuna işaret etmesi, Latour’un aktör-ağ teorisinde vurgulanan insan-dışı aktörlerin faillik kapasitesi, Haraway’in türler arası ortak yaşam ve bakım etiğiyle birleştiğinde insan-ötesi dayanıklılığın hem ontolojik hem epistemolojik hem de etik düzeylerde yeniden düşünülmesine imkân tanır. Bu teoriler ışığında insan-ötesi dayanıklılık altı tematik boyut üzerinden ele alınmıştır. Her bir boyut insan ve insan-dışı aktörlerin karşılıklı ilişkilerini görünür kılacak şekilde yapılandırılmıştır. Bu doğrultuda tematik literatür analizi ile alanın temel teorik ve empirik çalışmaları değerlendirilmiş ve teorik türetme yaklaşımıyla özgün bir model kurulmaya çalışılmıştır. Sonuç olarak, çok-türlü ontolojilerin ekolojik krize karşı insanı merkezden çıkaran yeni bir bakış açısı sunduğu; insana tanınan ontolojik, epistemolojik ve etik ayrıcalığı sorgulayarak diğer canlıları, nesneleri ve doğanın bir arka plân ya da kaynak değil, ilişkisel ontolojinin stratejik ortağı/öğesi olarak gördüğü ve kollektif varoluşun ancak çok-türlü ittifaklarla mümkün olduğu kanısı şekillenmiştir. Bu çerçeve, sosyolojiyi insan-ötesi bir ufka taşıyarak, yalnızca insanlar için değil, tüm canlılarla birlikte yaşanabilir bir gelecek inşasını hedeflemektedir. Bu bağlamda makale akademik, pratik ve etik açıdan önemli sonuçlara işaret etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• çok-türlü ontoloji
• Latour
• Haraway
• DeLanda
• Çevre Sosyolojisi
• çok-türlü ontoloji
• Latour
• Haraway
• DeLanda
• insan-ötesi dayanıklılık

New ontological inquiries in sociology and the reconstruction of ecological relations

Öz

Global environmental problems necessitate a new perspective that transcends anthropocentric boundaries of resilience. Drawing on thinkers such as Bruno Latour, Manuel DeLanda and Donna Haraway, this perspective rejects the nature-culture dualism and defines resilience through multi-species networks and relations of interdependence. DeLanda’s processual materialism, which posits that social and ecological existence emerges as dynamic assemblages, and Latour’s actor-network theory, which emphasizes the agency of non-human actors, together with Haraway’s ethics of interspecies coexistence and care, enable a rethinking of posthuman resilience at both ontological, epistemological and ethical levels. These theories provide the foundation for a six-dimensional framework of posthuman resilience. Each dimension is structured to make visible the interrelationships between human and nonhuman actors. In this direction, the basic theoretical and empirical studies of the field were evaluated through thematic literature analysis and an original model was tried to be established with the theoretical derivation approach. Consequently, multi-species ontologies offer a new ontology that decenters the human in the face of ecological crisis. This perspective questions the ontological, epistemological and ethical privilege granted to humans and views other living beings, objects and nature not as mere background or resources but as strategic partners/elements of relational ontology. Such an approach suggests that collective existence is possible only through multi-species alliances. Within this framework, sociology is carried towards a more-than-human horizon, aiming to build a livable future not only for humans but together with all living beings. In this sense, the study carries academic, practical, and ethical implications.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Environmental sociology
• Multi-species ontology
• Latour
• Haraway
• Delanda
• Posthuman resilience

Kaynakça

1. Achinstein, P. (1986). Theoretical derivations. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 17(4), 375–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(86)90001-4
2. Arora, S. (2018). Post-disaster memoryscapes: Communicating disaster risks and climate change after the Leh flash floods in 2010. Communication and the Public, 3(4). https://doi.org/-10.1177/2057047318812970
3. Aydın, Ş., & Şentürk, M. (2022). Asamblaj kavramı ile aktör-ağ teorisi arasındaki bağlantıların incelenmesi: Asamblaj kentçiliği. Tesam Akademi Dergisi, 9(1), 289–315. https://doi.org/10.30626/tesamakademi.1022695
4. Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Duke University Press.
5. Berkes, F. (1993). Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective. In J. T. Inglis (Ed.), Traditional ecological knowledge: Concepts and cases (pp. 1–10). International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge (IDRC).
6. Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (1998). Linking social and ecological systems: Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press.
7. Berkes, F. (2018). Sacred ecology: Traditional ecological knowledge and resource management (4th ed.). Routledge. (Original work published 1999)
8. Bianet. (2023). Köpekler arama kurtarma faaliyetlerinde hayati rol oynadı. Retrieved October 4, 2025, from https://bianet.org/haber/kopekler-arama-kurtarma-faaliyetlerinde-hayati-rol-oynadi-274555

9. Bozok, N. (2019). Herkesle ve kimsesiz, türler arasında ve kökensiz siborg: Donna Haraway’in düşüncesinde feminist bir beden politikasının imkânları. ViraVerita E-Dergi: Disiplinlerarası Karşılaşmalar, 9, 128–148.
10. Burgan, E. (2017). Çoklu türler etnografisi: Yüz yüze bir araştırma imkânı üzerine düşünceler. Moment Dergi, 4(1), 115–134. https://doi.org/10.175-72/moment.411578
11. Burgan Kıyak, E. (2023). Çayır ve kulübe: Yayla coğrafyasında türler arası cinsiyetli karşılaşmalar (Doktora tezi). Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
12. Burgan Kıyak, E. (2024). Yayla coğrafyasında türler arası yüz yüze karşılaşmalar: Feminist ve çoktürlü bir araştırma. In F. Şenol & U. Çubukçu (Eds.), Alışın, her yerdeyiz! (pp. 41–73). Dipnot Yayınevi.
13. Butler, A., Sarlöv-Herlin, I., Knez, I., Ångman, E., Ode Sang, Å., & Åkerskog, A. (2017). Landscape identity, before and after a forest fire. Landscape Research, 42(3), 246–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2016.1267126
14. Büyükşahin, F. (2017). Kültür-çevre bağlamında geleneksel ekolojik bilginin korunmasının önemi: Sarıkeçili yörükler örneği (Doktora tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi.
15. Canaslan, E. (2021). Bilim felsefesine ekolojik bir yaklaşım: Bruno Latour’un çoğulcu kavramları. Felsefi Düşün Akademik Felsefe Dergisi, 17, 68–91.
16. Coffey, Y., Bhullar, N., Durkin, J., Islam, M. S., & Usher, K. (2021). Understanding eco-anxiety: A scoping review of current literature and identified knowledge gaps. The Journal of Climate Change and Health, 3, 100047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joclim.2021.100047
17. DeLanda, M. (2000). Deleuze, diagrams, and the genesis of form. Amerikastudien / American Studies, 45(1), 33–41.
18. DeLanda, M. (2006). A new philosophy of society: Assemblage theory and social complexity. Bloomsbury Publishing.
19. DeLanda, M. (2013). Ontological commitments. In M. Austin, P. J. Ennis, F. Gironi, T. Gokey, & R. Jackson (Eds.), Speculations IV: Speculative realism (pp. 332–341). Punctum Books. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.2353969.13
20. Euronews. (2017). French government hires cats to chase out rats in ministry buildings. Retrieved October 4, 2025, from https://www.euronews.com/2017/12/21/french-government-combats-rat-infestation-in-ministries-with-cats
21. Eyre, A. (1999). In remembrance: Post-disaster rituals and symbols. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 14(3), 23–28.
22. Fisher, W. (1987). Human communication as narration. University of South Carolina Press.
23. Folke, C. (2004). Traditional knowledge in social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change. Ecology and Society, 9(3), Article 7. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art7/
24. Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002
25. Freeman, M. M. R. (1992). The nature and utility of traditional ecological knowledge. Northern Perspectives, 20(1), 9–12.
26. Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1993). Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio, 22(2–3), 151–156.
27. Gregg, M., & Seigworth, G. J. (Eds.). (2010). The affect theory reader. Duke University Press.
28. Haraway, D. (1985). A manifesto for cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the 1980s. Socialist Review, 80(2), 65–108.
29. Haraway, D. (2003). The companion species manifesto: Dogs, people, and significant otherness. Prickly Paradigm Press.
30. Haraway, D. (2008). When species meet. University of Minnesota Press.
31. Haraway, D. (2015). Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making kin. Environmental Humanities, 6(1), 159–165. https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-3615934
32. Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press.
33. Hartog, L. (2009, July 1). Long live the King: How the Sierra Club’s 1960s lawsuit stopped Disney from turning Mineral King into a ski resort. Sierra Club. Retrieved October 4, 2025, from https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2009-4-july-august/long-live-king
34. Hickman, C. (2020). We need to (find a way to) talk about … eco-anxiety. Journal of Social Work Practice, 34(4), 411–424. https://doi.org/10.-1080/02650533.2020.1844166
35. Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1–23.
36. Hunn, E. (1993). What is traditional ecological knowledge? In N. M. Williams & G. Baines (Eds.), Traditional ecological knowledge: Wisdom for sustainable development (pp. 13–15). Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University.
37. Kalwak, W., & Weihgold, V. (2022). The relationality of ecological emotions: An interdisciplinary critique of individual resilience as psychology’s response to the climate crisis. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 823620. https://doi.org/10.-3389/fpsyg.2022.823620
38. Kennedy, C. (2022). Ruderal resilience: Applying a ruderal lens to advance multispecies urbanism and social-ecological systems theory. Frontiers in Built Environment, 8. https://doi.org/-10.3389/fbuil.2022.769357
39. Kuru, G. (2024). Doğanın hak öznesi olarak kabulü. Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, 30(1), 70–85. https://doi.org/10.33433/maruhad.1459368
40. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (2022). Laboratuvar hayatı: Bilimsel olguların inşası (Ü. Tatlıcan, Çev.). Phoenix Yayınevi. (Original work published 1979)
41. Latour, B. (2005). Bilim nasıl işler? (E. Ayhan, Çev.). Heretik Yayıncılık. (Original work published 1987)
42. Latour, B. (1990). Technology is society made durable. The Sociological Review, 38(1), 103–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1990.-tb03350.x
43. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern (C. Porter, Trans.). Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1991)
44. Latour, B. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Soziale Welt, 47(4), 369–381.
45. Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Harvard University Press.
46. Latour, B. (2016). Toplumu yeniden toplamak: Aktör-ağ teorisine giriş (A. Aslan, Çev.). Heretik Yayınları. (Original work published 2005)
47. Mackinson, S., & Nøttestad, L. (1998). Combining local and scientific knowledge. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 8(4), 481–490.
48. Mark, J. (2019). Ortaçağda kediler. World History Encyclopedia. Retrieved October 4, 2025, from https://www.worldhistory.org/trans/tr/2-1387/orta-cagda-kediler/
49. McGregor, D. (2004). Traditional ecological knowledge and sustainable development: Toward coexistence. In M. Blaser, H. A. Feit, & G. McRae (Eds.), In the way of development: Indigenous peoples, life projects and globalization (pp. 72–96). Zed Books; International Development Research Centre.
50. Meerow, S., Newell, J. P., & Stults, M. (2016). Defining urban resilience: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 147, 38–49. https://doi.org/10.-1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.011
51. Menzies, C. R. (2006). Ecological knowledge, subsistence, and livelihood practices: The case of the pine mushroom harvest in northwestern British Columbia. In C. R. Menzies (Ed.), Traditional ecological knowledge and natural resource management (pp. 87–107). University of Nebraska Press.
52. Mitman, G. (2019). Reflections on the Plantationocene: A conversation with Donna Haraway and Anna Tsing. Edge Effects. Retrieved October 3, 2025, from https://edgeeffects.net/haraway-tsing-plantationocene
53. Oybak, E. (1994). Ağaç halkalarından eskiyi okumak… Dendrokronoloji. Bilim ve Teknik, 321, 26–31.
54. Önder, D. (2025). Yeni ontolojilerin felsefi kartografisi ve tartışma konuları. Felsefe ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Yeni Ontolojiler Özel Sayısı, 41, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.53844/flsf.1731400
55. Pierotti, R., & Wildcat, D. (2000). Traditional ecological knowledge: The third alternative. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1333–1340.
56. Qiu, S., & Qiu, J. (2024). From individual resilience to collective response: Reframing ecological emotions as catalysts for holistic environmental engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1363418. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024-.1363418
57. Rahman, A. (2024). Underrated urban wildlife: Can street animals in cities contribute to sustainable living environments? Let’s Sustain. Retrieved October 4, 2025, from https://www.letssustain.org/post/underrated-urban-wildlife-can-street-animals-in-cities-contribute-to-sustainable-living-environment
58. Rose, D. B. (2011). Wild dog dreaming: Love and extinction. University of Virginia Press.
59. Ruiz-Serna, D. (2023). Echos of earthly suffering in transitional justice. Fieldsights, Cultural Anthropology. Retrieved October 4, 2025, from https://www.culanth.org/fieldsights/echos-of-earthly-suffering-in-transitional-justice
60. Sevgi, O. (2015). Ecology teriminin Türkçe karşılıkları üzerine bir değerlendirme. Avrasya Terim Dergisi, 3(1), 27–46.
61. Sharifi, A. (2023). Resilience of urban social-ecological-technological systems (SETS): A review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 99, 104910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104910
62. Simko, C. (2019). Collective memory. Oxford Bibliographies. https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780-199756384-0215
63. Stanica, M. (2016). Portraits of delegation. The Eighteenth Century, 57(2), 235–249.
64. Stevenson, M. G. (1996). Indigenous knowledge in environmental assessment. Arctic, 49(3), 278–291.
65. Stone, C. D. (1972). Should trees have standing? Toward legal rights for natural objects. Southern California Law Review, 45, 450–501.
66. Tsing, A. L. (2023). Dünyanın sonundaki mantar: Kapitalist yıkıntılarda yaşamın olasılıkları (E. Gökyaran, Çev.). Yapı Kredi Yayınları. (Original work published 2015)
67. Turner, B. L. (2008). A skeptic’s comments on resilience and alternative approaches to coupled human-environment systems. In M. Leach (Ed.), Re-framing resilience: A symposium report (pp. 9–10). STEPS Centre, University of Sussex.
68. Usher, P. J. (2000). Traditional ecological knowledge in environmental assessment and management. Arctic, 53(2), 183–193.
69. Van Dooren, T., & Rose, D. B. (2016). Lively ethnography: Storying animist worlds. Environmental Humanities, 8(1), 76–94. https://doi.org/10.-1215/22011919-3527731
70. Wharldall, B. (2024). Toward multispecies mourning: Imagining an art therapy for ecological grief. Art Therapy, 41(3), 128–134. https://doi.org-/10.-1080/07421656.2024.2363086