Risk toplumunu yeniden gözden geçirmek: COVID-19’un kent ve toplum üzerindeki sorunlu halleri

Yıl 2021, , 452 - 469, 28.09.2021

Ezgi Orhan

https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.880269

Öz

Bu makale, COVID-19 salgının ardından küresel risk ortamının koşullarına ilişkin eleştirel bir değerlendirme sunmaktadır. Koronavirüs hastalığı tüm dünyaya yayılırken halk sağlığına dair öncelikler ile ekonomik uyum politikalarına dair alınan tedbirleri sorgulatmaktadır. Sosyal, politik ve ekonomik maliyetleriyle, toplumları zorluklara sürükleyen salgın konusu, bir sağlık sorunu olarak tanımlanmanın sınırlarını aşmış ve modernite ve kapitalist ekonomik sisteme dair yeni bir paradigmanın katalizörü haline gelmiştir. İnsan yaşamının her yönünde yarattığı yıkıcı etkileriyle, virüse ilişkin sorunlar bireyleri, ulusları ve küresel toplumu ‘risklerle yaşa-ma’ yollarını düşünmeye yöneltmektedir. COVID-19’un ortaya koyduğu tehditten yola çıkan bu makale, geçmiş deneyimleri, mevcut durumu ve eğilimleri ‘risk toplumu’ kavramı üzerin-den okuyarak, toplum, kent ve planlama ilişkilerini tartışmaktadır. Modernitenin, kapitalizmin ve halk sağlığı önceliklerinin tarihsel dinamiklerini yansıtarak, salgın sonrası dünya için farklı ölçeklerde toplumun yeni normallerine ışık tutmaktadır. Eleştirel değerlendirme yoluyla, bu makale risk toplumunun yeni aşamalarını bireysel, yerel, ulusal ve küresel ölçeklerde kavram-sallaştırır ve her ölçeğin içerdiği ikilemi tasvir eder.

Anahtar Kelimeler

risk toplumu, modernite eleştirisi, kapitalizm, kent, planlama

Risk society revisited: Challenging positions of COVID-19 on city and society

Öz

This paper presents a critical evaluation on the global riskscape following the COVID-19 pandemic. The coronavirus disease spread around the globe questioning the priorities in public health policies as well as the economic adaptability to prevention measures. Spreading with social, political and economic costs on societies, the issue of pandemic exceeds the limits of being identified as a health problem, and becomes to be a catalyst of a new paradigm consid-ering the state of art of modernity and capitalist economic systems. Regarding the catastrophic impact on human life in all aspects, the virus-related problems lead individuals, nations and global society to evaluate the ways of ‘living with risks’. Departing from the threat posed by the COVID-19, this paper discusses the issues of society, city and planning by reading the past experiences, current situation and trends through the concept of ‘risk society’. It reflects on the historic dynamics of modernity, capitalism and public health priorities, and sheds light on the ‘new normal’ of the society at different scales for the post-pandemic world. Through the critical evaluation, this paper conceptualizes the new phase of risk society at individual, local, national and global scales; and portrays the dichotomies that each scale incorporates.

Anahtar Kelimeler

risk society, critique of modernity, capitalism, city, planning

Kaynakça

• Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: On the way to an alternative modernity. Sage, Thou-sand Oaks
• Beck, U. (1999). World risk society. Polity Press, Cambridge.
• Beck, U. (2009). Critical Theory of World Risk Society: A cosmopolitan vision, Constellations, 16(1):1-20.
• Busa, A. (2010). City beautiful movement, in Hutchison, R. (Ed.) Encyclopaedia of Urban Studies. Sage Publications.
• Childe, V. G. (1950). The urban revolution. Town Planning Review, 21(1), 3.
• Cohen, M. J. (1997). Risk society and ecological modernization: Alternative visions for post-industrial nations, Futures, 29(2): 105-119.
• Corburn, J. (2013). Healthy city planning: From neighbourhood to national health equity, Routledge: Abingdon.
• Derviş, K. (2020). The Covid-19 solidarity test, İstanbul Policy Centre, Analysis, April 2020.
• Diamond, J. M. (1998). Guns, germs and steel: a short history of everybody for the last 13,000 years. Random House.
• Dingwall, R. (1999). Risk society: The cult of theory and the Millennium?, So-cial Policy & Administration, 33(+): 474-491.
• Elliott, J. E. (1980). Marx and Schumpeter on capitalism's creative destruction: A comparative restatement. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 95(1), 45-68.
• Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Giddens, A. (1998). Risk society: the context of British politics. In: Franklin J (ed) The politics of risk society. Polity Press, Cambridge
• Hall, S. and Gieben, B. (1992). Formations of modernity. Polity Press; The Open University.
• Harvey, D. (1978). The urban process under capitalism: a framework for anal-ysis. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2(1-3), 101-131.
• ILO (2020). ILO Monitor: COVID-19 and the world of work. Fourth edition, Up-dated estimates and analysis. International Labour Organization publica-tions. May 27, 2020.
• Jackson, K. T. (2011). The drive-in culture of contemporary America: From crabgrass frontier: The suburbanization of the United States (1985). In The City Reader (pp. 89-98). Routledge.
• Lafargue, P. (2012). The right to be lazy. (Translated by C. Kerr), The Floating Press.
• Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1967). The communist manifesto. 1848. (Translated by S. Moore). London: Penguin.
• Mol, A. and Spaargaren, G. (1997). Environment, modernity and the risk-society; The apocalyptic horizon of environmental reform, in The ecological modernization of production and consumption; Essays in environmental sociolo-gy, Spaargaren, G. (ed.), Thesis Landbouw Universiteit Wageningen.
• Musto, D. F. (1986). Quarantine and the problems of AIDS, The Milbank Quar-terly, 97-117.
• Orhan, E. (2015). The consequences of security cognition in post-disaster ur-ban planning practices in the case of Turkey, Natural Hazards, 76(1): 685-703.
• Saunders, P. (1987). Social theory and the urban question. London: Unwin Hy-man (2nd edition).
• Schumpeter, J. A. (1950). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Har-per.
• Waagenaar, M. (2010). Haussmann, Baron Georges-Eugene, in Hutchison, R. (Ed.) Encyclopaedia of urban studies. Sage Publications.
• World Bank (2020). Lasting scars of the COVID-19 pandemic, retrieved from web page https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/global-economic-prospects, last accessed on June 03, 2020.
• World Health Organization (2020). International community rallies to support open research and science to fight COVID-19, retrieved from web page https://www.who.int/news-room, last accessed on May 30, 2020.
• Wyly, E. K., Glickman, N. J. and Lahr, M. L. (1998). A top 10 list of things to know about American cities. Cityscape, 7-32.