Agamben’in İstisna Hali Olarak Pandemi Döneminde Dışsal Siyasal Etkililik: Sosyal Etki Teori Çerçevesinde Bir İnceleme

Öz

Bu çalışmada Agamben’in “İstisna Hali” kavramından yola çıkılarak pandemi döneminde alınan ve uygulamaya konan önleyici ve ihtiyati tedbirlerin Sosyal Etki Teorisi çerçevesinde üniversite öğrencilerinin Dışsal Siyasal Etkililik duygularında nasıl bir değişiklik yarattığı sorusunun cevabını bulmaya yönelik olarak hazırlanmıştır. Bu çerçevede bir üniversite öğrencileri üzerinde alan araştırması yapılmış ve elde edilen veriler SPSS 23 yazılımı yardımıyla uyum analizi kullanılmak suretiyle değerlendirilmiştir. Bu değerlendirmeler sonucunda siyasal iktidara ve dolayısıyla kazanan partilere yakın duran bireylerin dışsal siyasal etkililikleri yüksek iken muhalif siyasal partilere destek verenlerin düşük olduğu gözlemlenmiştir. Ancak açık uçlu olarak sorduğumuz sorulardan anlaşıldığı kadarıyla da öğrencilerin bu süreci genel olarak siyasetin dışında, olduğundan çok daha kapsamlı bir “istisna hali” olarak algıladıkları anlaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İstisna hali
• Dışsal Siyasal Etkililik
• Covid-19
• Pandemi
• Uyum Analizi

External Political Efficacy in The Period of Pandemic as Agamben's State of Exception: An Investigation in The Framework of Social Impact Theory

Abstract

In this study, it was prepared to find the answer to the question of how the preventive and precautionary measures taken and put into practice during the pandemic period, based on Agamben's concept of "State of Exception", created a change in the feelings of external political efficacy of university students within the framework of Social Impact Theory. In this context, a field study was conducted on university students and the data obtained were evaluated by using correspondence analyses with the help of SPSS 23 software. As a result of these evaluations, it has been observed that while the external political efficacy of individuals who are close to the political power and thus to the winning parties is high, those who support the opposition political parties are low. However, as understood from the open-ended questions we asked that the students generally perceived this process as outside of politics. a much more comprehensive “state of exception” than it was.

Keywords

• State of Exception
• External Political Efficacy
• Covid-19
• Pandemic
• Correspondence Analysis

Kaynakça

1. Abramson, P. R., & Aldrich, J. H. (1982). The Decline of Electoral Participation in America. The American Political Science Review, 76(3), 502-521.
2. Acock, A., Clarke, H. D., & Stewart, M. C. (1985). A New Model for Old Measures: A Covariance Structure Analysis of Political Efficacy. The Journal of Politics, 47(4), 1062-1084.
3. Agamben, G. (2006). İstisna Hali. (K. Atakay, Çev.) İstanbul: Otonom Yayıncılık.
4. Agamben, G. (2013). Kutsal İnsan Egemen iktidar ve Çıplak Hayat. İstanbul: Ayrıntı.
5. Agamben, G. (2021). Where Are We Now: The Epidemic as Politics. London: Eris.
6. Agamben, G., & Heller-Roazen, D. (2000). Potentialities: Collected Essays in Philosophy. Stanford University Press.
7. Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1989). The Civic Culture_ Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. London: Sage.
8. Amnå, E., Munck, I., & Zetterberg, P. (2004). Meaningful Participation? Political Efficacy of Adolescents in 24 countries. Emerging Repertoires of Political Action: Toward a Systematic Study of Postconventional Forms of Participation at ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops. Upsala.

9. Anderson, M. R. (2010). Community Psychology, Political Efficacy, and Trust. Political Psychology, 31(1), 59-84.
10. Ashton, a. T. (1983). A Study of Teachers' Sense of Efficacy. Final Report, Executive Summary. Florida: Foundations of Education, University of Florida.
11. Balch, G. I. (1974). Multiple Indicators in Survey Research: The Concept "Sense of Political Efficacy". Political Methodology, 1(2), 1-43.
12. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived Self-Efficacy in Cognitive Development and Functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
13. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
14. Baştürk, E. (2013). Modern Egemenliğin 'Nomos'u Olarak İstisna Hali . FLSF, 71-83.
15. Bennett, L. L., & Bennett, S. E. (1989). Enduring Gender Differences In Political Interest The Impact of Socialization and Political Dispositions. American Politics Quarterly, 17(1), 105-122.
16. Bentzen, S. S. (2014). Perceptions Of Corruption & External Political Efficacy: Regime Stability & Democratic Legitimacy. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 784.: onic Theses and Dissertations. 784. adresinden alındı
17. Benzécri, J.-P. (1992). Correspondence Analysis Handbook. New York: CRC Press.
18. Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (2002). . Democracy, Institutions and Attitudes about Citizen Influence on Government. British Journal of Political Science, 32(2), 371-390.
19. Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1954). The Voter Decides. New York: Peterson.
20. Caprara, G. V., Vecchione, M., Capanna, C., & Mebane, M. (2009). Perceived political self-efficacy: Theory, assessment, and aplications. European Jounal of Social Pschology, 1002-1019.
21. Carnegie. (2021, Eylül 03). Global Protest Tracker. Eylül 08, 2021 tarihinde Carnegie Endowment for İnternational Peace: https://carnegieendowment.org/publications/interactive/protest-tracker?gclid=CjwKCAjwvuGJBhB1EiwACU1Aiajc8Rg5joR1EefWNnBZ26wRAHzjG_y7n_hTo-hILXzumAS2-FhGLBoCGhkQAvD_BwE# adresinden alındı
22. Chamberlain, A. (2012). A Time-Series Analysis of External Efficacy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(1), 117-130.
23. Clarke, H. D., & Acock, A. C. (1989). National Elections and Political Attitudes: The Case of Political Efficacy. British Journal of Political Science, 19(4), 551-562.
24. Craig, S. C., & Maggiotto, M. A. (1982). Measuring Political Efficacy. Political Methodology, 8(3), 85-109.
25. Craig, S. C., Niemi, R. G., & Silver, G. E. (1990). Political Efficacy And Trust: A Report On The Nes Pilot Study Items. Pohtical Behavior, 12(3), 289-314.
26. Davis, C. L., & Colema, K. M. (1976). The Structural Context of Politics and Dimensions of Regime Performance: Their Importance for the Comparative Study of Political Efficacy. Comparative Political Studies, 9, 189-206.
27. Dinçer, E. H. (2019). Agamben'in Siyasal Kuramı ve Türkiye'deki Suriyelilerin Hukuksal Statüleri. Göç Dergisi. doi:10.33182/gd.v6i2.640
28. Dyck, J. J., & Lascher, E. L. (2009). Direct Democracy and Political Efficacy Reconsidered. Political Behavior. Political Behavior, 401-427.
29. Finkel, S. E. (1987). The Effects of Participation on Political Efficacy and Political Support: Evidence from a West German Panel. The Journal of Politics, 49(2), 441-464.
30. Foucault, M. (2013). Güvenlik, Toprak, Nüfus. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
31. Frey, B. (1997). A Constitution for Knaves Crowds Out Civic Virtues. Economic Journal, 107, 1043-1053.
32. Geurkink, B., Zaslove, A., Sluiter, R., & Jacobs, K. (2020). Populist Attitudes, Political Trust, and External Political Efficacy: Old Wine in New Bottles? Political Studies, 68(1), 247-267.
33. Goodwill, A. M., Allen, J. C., & Kolarevic, D. (2014). Improvement of Thematic Classification in Offender Profiling: Classifying Serbian Homicides Using Multiple Correspondence, Cluster, and Discriminant Function Analyses. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 11(3), 221-236.
34. Greenacre, M. (2017). Correspondence Analysis in Practice. Barcelona: hapman and Hall/CRC.
35. Gurin, P., Gurin, G., & Morrison, B. M. (1978). Personal and Ideological Aspects of Internal and External Control. Social Psychology, 41(4), 275-296.
36. IBM Corp. (Released 2015). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23.0. Armond, New York: IBM Corp.
37. Iyengar, S. (1980). Subjective Political Efficacy as a Measure of Diffuse Support. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44(2), 249-256.
38. Jasanoff, S., Hilgartner, S., James, W., & White, L. (2021). Learning From Covid: A 23-Nation Comparative Study of COVID-19 Response, with Lessons for the Future of Public Health. 09 09, 2021 tarihinde Comparative Covid Response: https://compcore.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/012021-23-National-Comparative-Study-Synthesis-Paper4.pdf adresinden alındı
39. Kaloudelis, D., Abdulwahab, A., Fatima, A., & Yasin, Z. (2021). Design of a University Pandemic Response Decision Support System. Proceedings of the Annual General Donald R. Keith Memorial Conference, (s. 205-210). West Point, New York, USA 29 April 2021. 03 15, 2022 tarihinde http://www.ieworldconference.org/content/WP2021/Papers/GDRKMCC_21_64.pdf adresinden alındı
40. Karaman, T. (2004). Political efficacy and its antecedents in contemporary Russia. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 20(2), 30-49.
41. Karp, J. A., & Banducci, S. A. (2008). Political Efficacy and Participation in TwentySeven Democracies: How Electoral Systems Shape Political Behavior. British Journal of Political Science, 38(2), 311-324.
42. Kartal, O. (2019). Yaşayan Ölüler: Sinema, Biyopolitika ve Felsefe. İstanbul: İthaki.
43. Khare, V. (2021, Haziran 05). The India Covid patients whose lonely deaths went viral. Eylül 06, 2021 tarihinde BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-57098625 adresinden alındı
44. Kölln, A.-K., Esaiasson, P., & Turper, S. (2013). External Efficacy and Perceived Responsiveness – Same, same or different? EPOP 2013 Conference 13-15 Eylül 2013. Lancester: https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/events/epop2013/docs/External%20efficacy%20and%20responsiveness%201209.pdf.
45. Lambert, R. D., J. E., Brown, S. D., & Kay, B. J. (1986). Effects of Identification with Governing Parties on Feelings of Political Efficacy and Trust. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 19(4), 705-728.
46. Latané, B. (1981). The Psychology of Social Impact. American Psychologist, 36(4), 343356.
47. Latané, B., & Wolf, S. (1981). The social impact of majorities and minorities. Psychological Review, 88(5), 438-453.
48. Lemke, T., Casper, M. J., & Moore, L. J. (2011). Biopolitics: An Advanced Introduction. NYU Press.
49. Miller, W. E., A. H., & Schneider, E. J. (1980). American National Election Studies Data Sourcebook, 1952-1978. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
50. Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review,, 91(3), 328-346.
51. Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring Internal Political Efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. The American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1407-1413.
52. Norris, M. (2016). The Economic Roots of External Efficacy: Assessing the Relationship between External Political Efficacy and Income Inequality. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 1(4), 1-23.
53. Özmakas, U. (2020). Biyopolitika: İktidar ve Direniş Foucault, Agamben, Hardt-Negri. İletişim.
54. Pateman, C. (1971). Political Culture, Political Structure and Political Change. British Journal of Political Science, 1(3), 291-305.
55. PAÜ. (2021). Sayılarla PAÜ. Eylül 08, 2021 tarihinde Pamukkale Üniversitesi: https://www.pau.edu.tr/pau/tr/sayilarlaPAU adresinden alındı
56. Pinkleton, B. E., Austin, E. W., Zhou, Y., Willoughby, J. F., & Reiser, M. (2012). Perceptions of News Media, External Efficacy, and Public Affairs Apathy in Political Decision Making and Disaffection. 89(1), 23-39.
57. Pollock, I. P. (1983). The Participatory Consequences of Internal and External Political Efficacy: A Research Note. The Western Political Quarterly, 36(3), 400-409.
58. Rico, G., Guinjoan, M., & Anduiza, E. (2020). Empowered and enraged: Political efficacy, anger and support for populism. European Journal of Political Research, 59(4), 797-816.
59. Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
60. Sarieva, I. R. (2018). How To Measure Perceived Political Efficacy? A Three-Component Scale. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics., 15(3), 477-490.
61. Schulz, W. (2005, Eylül 8-10). Political Efficacy and Expected Political Participation among Lower and Upper Secondary Students. ECPR General Conference in Budapest: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED499264.pdf adresinden alındı
62. Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and ability in achievement behavior. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 173–208.
63. Shaffer, S. D. (1981). A Multivariate Explanation of Decreasing Turnout in Presidential Elections, 1960-1976. American Journal of Political Science, 25(1), 68-95.
64. Smith, D. A., & Tolbert, C. J. (2004). Educated by Initiative: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Citizens and Political Organizations in the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
65. Stewart, M. C., Kornberg, A., Clarke, H. D., & Acock, A. (1992). Arenas and Attitudes: A Note on Political Efficacy in a Federal System. The Journal of Politics, 54(1), 179-196.
66. TBMM. (2020, Nisan 17). Yeni Koronavirüs (Covıd-19) Salgınının Ekonomik Ve Sosyal Hayata Etkilerinin Azaltılması Hakkında Kanun İle Bazı Kanunlarda Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Kanun. 08 18, 2021 tarihinde Mevzuat Bilgi Sistemi: https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuat?MevzuatNo=7244&MevzuatTur=1&MevzuatTertip=5 adresinden alındı
67. TC Cumhurbaşkanlığı. (2021). Cumhurbaşkanı Genelgeleri. 09 14, 2021 tarihinde Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaşkanlığı Mevzuat Bilgi Sistemi: https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/#cumhurbaskaniGenelgeleri adresinden alındı
68. Ulbig, S. G. (2008). Voice Is Not Enough: The Importance of Influence in Political Trust and Policy Assessments. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(3), 523-539.
69. Valentino, N. A., Gregorowicz, K., & Groenendyk, E. W. (2009). Efficacy, Emotions and the Habit of Participation. Political Behavior, 31(3), 307-330.
70. Vetter, A. (1997). Political Efficacy - Reliabilitiit und Validitiit. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitots-Verlag GmbH.
71. Watts, M. W. (1973). Efficacy, Trust, and Commitment to the Political Process. Social Science Quarterly, 54(3), 623-631.
72. WHO. (1999). Influenza Pandemic Plan. The Role of WHO and Guidelines for National and Regional Planning. Geneva: World Health Organization.
73. WHO. (2021). About pandemic phases. Eylül 8, 2021 tarihinde World Health Organization Europe: https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/communicable-diseases/influenza/data-and-statistics/pandemic-influenza/about-pandemic-phases adresinden alındı
74. WHO. (2021). Timeline: WHO's COVID-19 response. Eylül 8, 2021 tarihinde World Health Organization: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/interactive-timeline#! adresinden alındı
75. YÖK. (2020, Mart 06). Basın Açıklaması. 09 14, 2021 tarihinde YÖK: https://covid19.yok.gov.tr/Documents/alinan-kararlar/03-uzaktan-egitime-iliskin-alinan-karar.pdf adresinden alındı
76. YÖK. (2021). Covid-19 ve Yükseköğretim. Eylül 8, 2021 tarihinde Yükseköğretim Kurulu: https://covid19.yok.gov.tr/covid-19-yuksekogretim-yol-haritasi adresinden alındı
77. YÖK. (2021). Yükseköğretim Bilgi Yönetim Sistemi. Eylül 08, 2021 tarihinde Yükseköğretim Kurumu: https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/ adresinden alındı
78. Zúñiga, H. G., Diehl, T., & Ardévol-Abreu, A. (2017). Internal, External, and Government Political Efficacy: Effects on News Use, Discussion, and Political Participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61(3), 574-596.