Don Kişot Sosyal Merkezi İşgalcilerinin Mekan Çerçevelerindeki Kimlik Konumlandırmaları

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 40 Sayı: 2, 625 - 624, 30.09.2020

İdil Atabinen Göklem Tekdemir

Öz

Politik mekanın nasıl çerçevelendiğine dair yapılan çalışmalar kimlik inşa sürecine geniş bir perspektif sağlar. Çerçeveler hareketin ve hareketin yürütüldüğü mekanın ideolojik kültürüne yönelik olarak alternatif gerçeklikler barındırır, mekandaki farklı ve/veya alternatif kimlikleri konumlandırır ve anlatıcının özne pozisyonunu görünür kılar. Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’nin son zamanlardaki en meşhur politik işgal örneği sayılan İstanbul Kadıköy’deki Don Kişot Sosyal Merkezi’ndeki (mekan 2013-2015 yılları arasında açık kalmıştır) işgalcilerin yaptığı mekan çerçevelerindeki farklı kimlik inşaları çalışılmıştır. İşgal evinde aktif olarak bulunmuş 13 kişiyle yarı-yapılandırılmış ve derinlemesine mülakatlar yapılmıştır. Görüşmeler eleştirel söylemsel psikoloji tekniğiyle analiz edilmiştir. Mekan içindeki farklı grupların birbirine zıt kimlik konumlandırmaları (örgütlüler ve örgütlü olmayanlar/anti-politikler arasında) ve farklı mekan çerçevelendirmeleri yaptıkları görülmüştür. Alıntılar Don Kişot Sosyal Merkez’e dair ortak üç açıklayıcı repertuvar (bir alternatif olarak işgal evi, düzenli bir yer, ideolojinin sınırlandığı alan) altında kategorize edilmiştir. Bu alıntılar politik eylemin kişiselliğini ve mekanın politikliğini aydınlatırken, katılımcıların kendi kimlik konumları ekseninde retorik olarak inşa ettikleri alternatif mekan çerçevelerini de göstermektedir. Ana sonuçlardan biri katılımcıların, aynı hareketin bir katılımcısı halindeyken ve aynı repertuvardan konuşuyorlarken bile kendilerini ve ötekileri belli özne pozisyonlarına konumlandırmak adına birbirine zıt çerçevelendirmeler inşa ettiğidir. Özetle bu çalışmada bir müşterekleştirme eylemindeki iç-grup ilişkileri ve dilsel kimlik inşa taktikleri ele alınmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, Yeni Sosyal Hareketler kategorisine giren bu tür hareketlerin yeniliğini tartışmak üzere ve bu hareketlerin hakiki alternatifleri, politik arenada gündeme getirdikleri konular ve diğer kolektif kimlik oluşturmanın başka yolları hakkında sorular sorulmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Mekan çerçeveleri, söylem analizi, kimlik konumlandırma, işgal

Identity Positionings in Squatters’ Framings of Don Quijote Social Centre

Öz

Studies on how to frame a political place render a broad perspective over identity making processes. Frames construct alternative realities based on the ideological culture (idioculture) of a movement and political place, and they position opposing and/or alternative identities within that place while setting the subject position of the narrator. This study deals with identity making within critical discursive psychology through the place frame of squatters who participated in Turkey’s most famous and recent (open between 2013-2015) urban political squatting incident at the Don Quijote Social Centre in Kadiköy, Istanbul. An analysis of 13 semi-structured in-depth interviews with the actual participants of the squat yields results which illuminate opposite identity positionings (between opposing positions of organized and unorganized/anti-political individuals) and contradicting place frames. Categorized under three argumentative repertoires (squat as an alternative, an orderly place, and a space with limited ideology), the findings reveal how political action and place are politicized by focusing on different place frames which the participants rhetorically make based on their subject positions. While people make use of the same repertoire and are part of the same movement, they make framings in an opposing way in order to position themselves and others into certain subject positions. In conclusion, the present study focuses on in-group relations and identity making in this commoning incident. In the conclusion, arguments like the novelty of these kinds of movement that fall under the category of New Social Movements, their genuine alternativeness, the topics they introduce to the political arena and other ways of collective identity formation are debated upon.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Place frames, discourse analysis, identity positioning, squatting

Kaynakça

• Benford, R. D. (1987). Framing Activity, Meaning, and Social-movement Participation: The Nuclear-disarmament Movement. Doctorate Thesis. Texas University, Austin (USA).
• Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 611-639.
• Benwell, B., & Stokoe, E. (2006). Discourse and identity. Edinburgh University Press.Bernstein, M. (1997). Celebration and suppression: The strategic uses of identity by the lesbian and gay movement. American Journal of Sociology, 103(3), 531-565.
• Best, S., & Kellner, D. (1991). Post-modern theory: Critical interrogations. New York: Guilford Press.
• Billig, M. (1989). The argumentative nature of holding strong views: A case study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19(3), 203-223.
• Bishop, C. (2004). Antagonism and relational aesthetics. CUNY Academic Works, 51-79.Burr, V. (1998). Overview: Realism, relativism, social constructionism and discourse. In I. Parker (Ed.), Social constructionism, discourse and realism (pp.13-26). London: Sage Publications.
• Cuba L., & Hummon D. (1993). Constructing a sense of home: Place affiliation and migration across the life cycle. Sociol. Forum,8, 547-72.
• De Moor, J. (2016). Practicing openness: Investigating the role of everyday decision making in the production of squatted space. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 40(2), 410-424.
• Dixon, J., & Durrheim, K. (2000). Displacing place-identity: a discursive approach to locating self and other. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(1), 27-44.
• Dixon, J., & Durrheim, K. (2004). Dislocating identity: Desegregation and the transformation of place. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(4), 455-473.
• Doğanay, G. (2016). The Scope of the Occupy Movements in Europe and the Case of Turkey: Don Quixote Squat Avrupa’da işgal hareketlerinin kapsamı ve Türkiye örneği: Don Kişot Sosyal Merkezi. Siyasal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(2), 91-112.
• Edley, N. (2001). Analysing masculinity: Interpretetive repertories, ideological dilemmas and subject positions. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor & S. J. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis(pp. 189-228). London: Sage Publications.
• Eskinat, D. (2013). Gezi Park: Negotiating a new left identity. Insight Turkey, 15(3), 45.
• Eyerman, R. (2007). How social movements move. In H. Flam & D. King (Eds.), Emotions and social movements (pp. 41- 57). Routledge.
• Farro, A.L., & Thaler H. (2014). Subjectivity and collective action. In A.L. Farro, H. Lustiger-Thaler, & E. Toscano (Eds.), Reimagining social movements: From collectives to individuals (pp. 1-15). Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
• Fine, G.A. (1995). Public narration and group culture: Discerning discourse in social movements. In H. Johnston & B. Klandermans (Eds.), Social movements and culture (pp.127-144). University of Minnesota Press.
• Fominaya, C.F. (2015). Autonomous social movements and the paradox of anti-identitarian collective identity. In A. McGarry & J. Jasper (Eds.), The identity dilemma: Social movements and collective identity (pp. 65-84). Temple University Press.
• Gambetti, Z. (2014). Occupy Gezi as politics of the body. In U. Ozkirimli (Ed.), The making of a protest movement in Turkey:# occupygezi (pp. 89-102). Palgrave Macmillan: UK.
• Göle, N. (2013). Gezi-anatomy of a public square movement. Insight Turkey, 15(3), 7-14.
• Gülen, H. (2016). Mahalle ve aktivizm: Caferağa Dayanışması ve Mahalle Evi deneyimi. In D. Gürler & A. S. Gürler (Eds), Karşı–işgal: İşgal hareketleri ve özyönetimler üzerine bir derleme (pp. 57-98). Siyah Beyaz Kitap.
• Harré, R., Moghaddam, F. M., Cairnie, T. P., Rothbart, D., & Sabat, S. R. (2009). Recent advances in Positioning Theory. Theory & Psychology, 19(1), 5-31.
• Hopkins, N., & Dixon, J. (2006). Space, place, and identity: Issues for political psychology. Political Psychology, 27(2), 173-185.
• Howard, J. A. (2000). Social psychology of identities. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 367-393.
• Kadir, N. (2016). The autonomous life?: Paradoxes of hierarchy and authority in the squatters movement in Amsterdam. Manchester University Press.
• Kelly, C. (1993). Group identification, intergroup perceptions and collective action. European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 59-83.
• Kıcı, S. (2015). Türkiye’de işgal evleri: Don Kişot Sosyal Merkezi örneği. Squatted Houses in Turkey: Example of Don Quixote Occupied Social Center. (Unpublished Bachelor’s Thesis). Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi .
• Kühnert, N., & Patscheider, A. (2015). Gregor Samsa and Don Kişot fighting against windmills–Squatting in Istanbul as an attempt to resist neo-liberal urban politics. Retrieved from: http://www.kaee.uni-goettingen.de/mapping-istanbul/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/SQUATTING.pdf
• Lenin, V. (1918). The State and Revolution. Lawrence & Wishart, UK. Lindstrom, B. (1997). A sense of place: housing selection on Chicago’s North Shore. Sociological Quarterly, 38, 19-39.
• Maeckelbergh, M. (2012). Horizontal democracy now: From alterglobalization to occupation. Interface, 4(1), 207-234.
• Martin, D. G. (2003). “Place-framing” as place-making: Constituting a neighborhood for organizing and activism. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93(3), 730-750.
• Martinez, M. (2007). The squatters’ movement: Urban counter-culture and alter-globalization dynamics.South European Society and Politics,12(3), 379-398.
• Mason, J. (2004). Personal narratives, relational selves: Residential histories in the living and telling. The Sociological Review, 52(2), 162-179.
• McDonald, K. (2002). From solidarity to fluidarity: Social movements beyond ‘collective identity’--the case of globalization conflicts. Social Movement Studies, 1(2), 109-128.
• Moscovici, S. (2001). Social representations: Essays in social psychology. NYU Press.
• Nunes, N. (2005). Nothing is what democracy looks like. In D. Harvie (Ed.), Shut them down!: The G8, Gleneagles 2005 and the movement of movements (pp. 299-319). Autonomedia, New York.
• Özçelik, D. (2019). Yeldeğirmeni’ndeki soylulaştırma sürecinin bir etnografisi. [An Ehnography of the Gentrification Process in Yeldeğirmeni Neighborhood]. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Kadir Has University.
• Özdeniz, D. (2016). Kentsel toplumsal hareketlerin kentlerin dönüşümüne etkilerinin değerlendirilmesi. [The Evaluation of the Effects of Urban Social Movements on Urban Transformations]. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Istanbul Technical University.
• Pichardo, N. A. (1997). New social movements: A critical review. Annual Review of Sociology, 23(1), 411-430.
• Poletta, F., & Jasper, J. M. (2001). Collective identity and social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 283-305.
• Potter, J., & Reicher, S. (1987). Discourses of community and conflict: The organization of social categories in accounts of a ‘riot’. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26(1), 25-40.
• Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1994). Analyzing discourse. In A. Bryman & R.G. Burgess (Eds.), Analyzing qualitative data (pp. 47-67). Routledge.
• Prujit, H. (2013). The logic of urban squatting. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(1), 19-45.
• Reicher, S. D. (1984). The St. Pauls’ riot: An explanation of the limits of crowd action in terms of a social identity model. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14(1), 1-21.
• Reicher, S., & Potter, J. (1985). Psychological theory as intergroup perspective: A comparative analysis of “scientific” and “lay” accounts of crowd events. Human Relations, 38(2), 167-189.
• Rittersberger-Tılıç, H. (2015). Squatting (in Turkey). In N. Konak & R. Ö. Dönmez (Eds), Waves of social movement mobilizations in the twenty-first century: Challenges to the neo-liberal world order and democracy, (p. 83-100). Lexington Books: London.
• Sağlam, A. İ., Öztürk, A. Ç., & Kaçar, A. D. (2019). Türkiye’de kamusal mekânın gelişimi. Development of the public space in Turkey. ATA Planlama ve Tasarım Dergisi, 3(1), 47-58.
• Sarbin, T. (1986). Narrative psychology: The storied nature of human conduct. New York: Praeger.
• Sarbin, T.R. (2005). If these walls could talk: Places as stages for human drama. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 18, 203-214.
• Snow, D. A. (2004). Framing Processes, ideology, and discursive fields. In D.A. Snow, S. A. Soule & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp.380-412). Blackwell: UK.
• Squatting Europe Kollective (2013). Squatting in Europe: Radical spaces, urban struggles. Brooklyn, Autonomedia.
• Steinberg, M. W. (1999). The talk and back talk of collective action: A dialogic analysis of repertoires of discourse among nineteenth-century English cotton spinners. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 736–80.
• Taylor, S. (2010). Narratives of identity and place. Routledge.Taylor, S., & Wetherell, M. (1999). A suitable time and place: Speakers’ use of time to do discursive work in narratives of nation and personal life. Time & Society, 8(1), 39-58.
• Taylor, V., & Whittier, N. (1995). Analytical approaches to social movement culture: The culture of the women’s movement. In H. Johnston & B. Klandermans (Eds.), Social movements and culture(pp.163-187). University of Minnesota Press.
• Touraine, A. (2002). The importance of social movements. Social Movement Studies, 1(1), 89-95.
• Van Dijk, T. A. (1984). Prejudice in discourse: An analysis of ethnic prejudice in cognition and conversation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
• Walljasper, J. (2010). All that we share, a field guide to the commons. The New Press, New York, USA.
• Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretetive repertories: Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse and Society,9(3), 387-412.
• Yıldırım, Y. (2014). The differences of Gezi Parki resistance in Turkish social movements. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 4(5), 177-185.