Farkındalıktan Siyasal Eylemliliğe: Çevre Bilincinin Siyasallaşmasının Koşulları ve Çevresel Bozulmanın Sürekliliği

Öz

Bu çalışma, çevre bilincinin giderek daha görünür hale gelmesine rağmen çevresel bozulmanın neden devam ettiğini incelemektedir. Davranışsal yaklaşımların çevre bilinci ile bireysel davranış arasındaki ilişkiye yönelik katkılarından hareketle çalışma, çevresel bilincin hangi koşullarda yapısal ve kurumsal süreçleri etkileyebilecek kolektif siyasal eylemliliğe dönüşebileceğine odaklanmaktadır. Bu amaçla “çevresel sorumluluğun tüketicileştirilmesi” kavramı geliştirilmekte ve çevresel sorumluluğun giderek tüketici rolü ve tüketim pratikleri aracılığıyla örgütlenmesine dikkat çekilmektedir. Çalışma, çevresel bilincin siyasallaşmasını şekillendiren birbiriyle ilişkili ancak analitik olarak farklı üç boyut tanımlamaktadır: yapısal koşullar, siyasi ve kurumsal koşullar ile yapabilirlik koşulları. Bu koşullar birbirini izleyen aşamalar olarak değil, kolektif siyasal eylemliliğin gelişimini ve çevresel bozulmayı yeniden üreten süreçleri etkileme kapasitesini şekillendiren farklı mekanizmalar olarak ele alınmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çevre Bilinci
• Çevre Siyaseti
• Çevresel Bozulma
• Çevresel Sorumluluğun Tüketicileştirilmesi
• Kolektif Siyasal Eylemlilik

From Awareness to Political Agency: The Conditions for the Politicisation of Environmental Consciousness and the Persistence of Environmental Degradation

Öz

This article examines why environmental degradation persists despite the increasing visibility of environmental consciousness. Building on the contributions of behavioural approaches to understanding the relationship between environmental consciousness and individual behaviour, it focuses on the conditions under which environmental consciousness can develop into collective political agency capable of influencing structural and institutional processes. To this end, the article develops the concept of the “consumerisation of environmental responsibility,” drawing attention to the increasing organisation of environmental responsibility through the consumer role and consumption practices. It identifies three interrelated but analytically distinct dimensions shaping the politicisation of environmental consciousness: structural conditions, political and institutional conditions, and capability conditions. Rather than constituting successive stages, these conditions are understood as different mechanisms shaping the development of collective political agency and its capacity to influence the processes reproducing environmental degradation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Collective Political Agency
• Consumerisation ıf Environmental Responsibility
• Environmental Consciousness
• Environmental Degradation
• Environmental Politics

Kaynakça

1. Aydar, Ö. (2026). Sivil toplumun sınırları: Sivil toplum örgütlerinin işlevleri ve sorunları üzerine nitel bir inceleme. İmgelem, (18), 355–382. https://doi.org/10.53791/imgelem.1827399.
2. Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002.
3. Castree, N. (2008). Neoliberalising nature: Processes, effects, and evaluations. Environment and Planning A, 40(1), 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1068/a39100.
4. De Costa, R., Ferrara, I., Toplak, M., Alam, A., Bowie, R., & Burnett, A. (2025). Behavioural insights and environmental sustainability: Key findings and policy implications from a systematic review. Journal of Environmental Management, 390, 126118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126118.
5. De Moor, J., & Wahlström, M. (2019). Narrating political opportunities: Explaining strategic adaptation in the climate movement. Theory and Society, 48, 419–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-019-09347-3.
6. Diani, M. (2018). Modes of coordination in political consumerism. M. Boström, M. Micheletti, & P. Oosterveer (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of political consumerism içinde (ss. 89–110). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190629038.013.5.
7. Ding, H., Zhao, Q., An, Z., Xu, J., & Liu, Q. (2015). Pricing strategy of environmental sustainable supply chain with internalizing externalities. International Journal of Production Economics, 170, 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.05.016.
8. Dioba, A., Kroker, V., Dewitte, S., & Lange, F. (2024). Barriers to pro-environmental behavior change: A review of qualitative research. Sustainability, 16(20), 8776. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16208776.

9. Dobson, A. (2007). Environmental citizenship: Towards sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 15(5), 276–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.344.
10. European Commission. (2019). The European green deal (com(2019) 640 final).
11. Foster, J. B. (1999). Marx’s theory of metabolic rift: Classical foundations for environmental sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 105(2), 366–405. https://doi.org/10.1086/210315.
12. Gereffi, G. (1994). The organization of buyer-driven global commodity chains: How U.S. retailers shape overseas production networks. G. Gereffi & M. Korzeniewicz (Ed.), Commodity chains and global capitalism içinde (ss. 95–122). Praeger.
13. Gould, K. A., Pellow, D. N., & Schnaiberg, A. (2004). Interrogating the treadmill of production: Everything you wanted to know about the treadmill but were afraid to ask. Organization & Environment, 17(3), 296–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026604268747.
14. Hadjichambis, A., Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, D., Georgiou, Y., & Adamou, A. (2024). How can we transform citizens into ‘environmental agents of change’? Towards the citizen science for environmental citizenship (CS4EC) theoretical framework based on a meta-synthesis approach. International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement, 14(1), 72–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2023.2199129.
15. Henderson, J., Dicken, P., Hess, M., Coe, N., & Yeung, H. W.-C. (2002). Global production networks and the analysis of economic development. Review of International Political Economy, 9(3), 436–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290210150842.
16. Holzer, B. (2006). Political consumerism between individual choice and collective action: Social movements, role mobilization and signalling. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30(5), 405–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2006.00538.x.
17. Hu, J., Longfor, N. R., Dong, L., & Qian, X. (2026). Beyond theory of planned behavior: A meta-analysis of psychological and contextual determinants of household waste separation. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 116, 108087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2025.108087.
18. Kavada, A. (2016). Social movements and political agency in the digital age: A communication approach. Media and Communication, 4(4), 8–12. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v4i4.691.
19. Kousis, M. (1999). Sustaining local environmental mobilisations: Groups, actions and claims in Southern Europe. Environmental Politics, 8(1), 172–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644019908414443.
20. Maniates, M. F. (2001). Individualization: Plant a tree, buy a bike, save the world? Global Environmental Politics, 1(3), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1162/152638001316881395.
21. McAdam, D. (1999). Political process and the development of Black insurgency, 1930–1970 (2. bs.). University of Chicago Press.
22. Micheletti, M. (2003). Political virtue and shopping: Individuals, consumerism, and collective action. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403973764.
23. Monticelli, L., & della Porta, D. (2018). The successes of political consumerism as a social movement. M. Boström, M. Micheletti, & P. Oosterveer (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of political consumerism içinde (ss. 773–792). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190629038.013.33.
24. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674041660.
25. Özberk, N. (2025). Kazdağları’nda çevresel adalet mücadelesi: Bumerang modeli ışığında yerel ve ulusötesi çevre savunuculuğu. İmgelem, (17), 209–248. https://doi.org/10.53791/imgelem.1769398.
26. Pelenc, J., Bazile, D., & Ceruti, C. (2015). Collective capability and collective agency for sustainability: A case study. Ecological Economics, 118, 226–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.001.
27. Pelenc, J., Lompo, M. K., Ballet, J., & Dubois, J.-L. (2013). Sustainable human development and the capability approach: Integrating environment, responsibility and collective agency. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 14(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2012.747491.
28. Richardson, K., Steffen, W., Lucht, W., Bendtsen, J., Cornell, S. E., Donges, J. F., Drüke, M., Fetzer, I., Bala, G., von Bloh, W., Feulner, G., Fiedler, S., Gerten, D., Gleeson, T., Hofmann, M., Huiskamp, W., Kummu, M., Mohan, C., Nogués-Bravo, D., & Rockström, J. (2023). Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Science Advances, 9(37), eadh2458. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458.
29. Saunders, C. (2007). Using social network analysis to explore social movements: A relational approach. Social Movement Studies, 6(3), 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742830701777769.
30. Schnaiberg, A. (1980). The environment: From surplus to scarcity. Oxford University Press.
31. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Alfred A. Knopf.
32. Soneryd, L., & Uggla, Y. (2015). Green governmentality and responsibilization: New forms of governance and responses to ‘consumer responsibility’. Environmental Politics, 24(6), 913–931. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2015.1055885.
33. Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175.
34. Stolle, D., & Micheletti, M. (2013). Political consumerism: Global responsibility in action. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511844553.
35. Tarrow, S. G. (2011). Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics (3. bs.). Cambridge University Press.
36. Trushna, T., Krishnan, K., Soni, R., Singh, S., Kalyanasundaram, M., Sidney Annerstedt, K., Pathak, A., Purohit, M., Stålsby Lundborg, C., Sabde, Y., Atkins, S., Sahoo, K. C., Rousta, K., & Diwan, V. (2024). Interventions to promote household waste segregation: A systematic review. Heliyon, 10(2), e24332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24332.
37. Van der Heijden, H.-A. (1997). Political opportunity structure and the institutionalisation of the environmental movement. Environmental Politics, 6(4), 25–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644019708414357.
38. Van der Heijden, H.-A. (2006). Globalization, environmental movements, and international political opportunity structures. Organization & Environment, 19(1), 28–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026605285452.
39. World Bank. (2020). World development report 2020: Trading for development in the age of global value chains.
40. Yıldız Karakoç, D., & Sezer Şanlı, A. (2025). Yeşil direniş: Cerattepe mücadelesinin yeni toplumsal hareketler bağlamında incelenmesi. İmgelem, (17), 417–450. https://doi.org/10.53791/imgelem.1794669.