The case of cultural schizophrenia: Alleged tampering with DNA codes via Covid-19 vaccines

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1, 41 - 48, 03.02.2023

Atilla Kılınç

Öz

The covid pandemic, which started in December 2019, was announced with a delay of two months in many developing countries like Turkey. With the announcement of the first cases in Turkey in the second week of March 2020, it became clear that a precise different situation would be experienced in the socioeconomic and health fields, which people had never faced before. Also, It took time for the World Health Organization to decide whether Covid-19 was a pandemic or an endemic. Meanwhile, the first problem faced by the public was the contradictory statements made by politicians about what happened. However, the issue that everyone discussed the most was the immune system and the biopolitics of politicians regarding the covid -19 vaccine and its development process. Public understanding of science has led governments to be unable to eliminate covid-related manipulations during covid’s evolution from endemic to the pandemic. After a while, governments tried to cover up the lack of vaccination by using these manipulations by the media. This whole process was built on the biopolitics of immunization and eventually led to the strengthening of public opposition to vaccines. The first aim of this article is to present how the government’s science communication strategy in Turkey has developed a collective resistance to vaccines through a case study. This analysis applies the “Four Moments” processes from Michael Callon’s article “Law, Power, action, and Belief: a new sociology of knowledge.” In addition, the article aims to show the underlying reasons for the anti-vaccination opposition that has been experienced in Turkey in the last two years and has grown stronger over time.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Biopolitics, Vaccine Resistance, Disinformation, Reproductivity, Turkey

Kaynakça

• ASHMORE, M. (1989). The Reflexive Thesis: Writing Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• ASHMORE, M. (2001). Reflexivity, in Science and Technology Studies. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Pages 12881–12884.
• BECK, U. (1997). The Reinvention of Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• BIJKER, W. (1992). “Do not despair: there is life after constructivism.” Shaping Technology/Building Society, edited by Wiebe Bijker and John Law (eds) 181(1993)113–38 (1992). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• BIJKER, W., HUGHES, T., AND TREVOR, P., (eds). (1987). The Social Construction of Technological Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• BLOOR, D. (1991). Knowledge and Social Imagery, second edit. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• CALLON, M. (1980). “Struggles and Negotiations to Decide What Is Problematic and What Is Not: The Sociology of Translation.” In The Social Process of Scientific Investigation, ed. Karin Knorr, Roger Krohn, and Richard Whitley, pp. 197–220. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.
• CALLON, M. (1986). Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fisherman of St. Brieuc Bay.
• CALLON, M. (2001). “Actor-Network Theory,” in Smelser N., Baltes P., (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences., Oxford, U.K., Pergamon, p.62–66.
• CALLON, M., LATOUR, B. (1981). “Unscrewing the Big Leviathans: How Do Actors Macrostructure Reality and How Sociologists Help Them.” In Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Micro and Macro Sociologies, ed. Karin Knorr and Aron Cicourel, pp. 277- 303. London: Routledge.
• CALLON, M.; LAW; AND RIP, A. (1986). Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology. London: Macmillan, ed.
• GEERTZ, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
• HABERMAS, J. (1991). “The public sphere” In Mukerji, C.; Schudson, M. (Ed.): Rethinking popular culture. Contemporary perspectives in cultural studies. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press. pp.398–404.
• HOLLIS, M, AND LUKES, S. (1982). Rationality and Relativism. MIT Press.
• JABLENSKY, A., & SARTORIUS, N. (1975). Culture and Schizophrenia. Psychological Medicine, 5(2), 113- 124. doi:10.1017/S003329170005635X
• KNORR CETINA, K. (1981). The Manufacture of Knowledge. New York: Pergamon.
• KNORR CETINA, K. (1983). “The ethnographic study of scientific work,” in Edited by: Karin Knorr Cetina and Michael Mulkay (eds), Science Observed. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. pp. 115–40.
• KNORR CETINA, K. (1985). “Germ Warfare.” The Social Process of Scientific Investigation, edited by Karin; Krohn, Roger; and Whitley, Richard, eds. 1981. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel. Social Studies of Science 15:577-588.
• KNORR CETINA, K. (1995). “Laboratory studies,” Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by: Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Peterson, and Trevor Pinch, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp. 140–66.
• KNORR CETINA, K. (1998). Epistemic Cultures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• KOCENDA, E., CABELKA, Z. (1998). “Liberalization in the Energy Sector: Transition and Growth,” Research Paper in International Conference of European Studies, Havana.
• KUCUKVAR, M., ONAT, N.C., HAIDER. M.A. (2018). “Material dependence of national energy development plans: the case for Turkey and United Kingdom.” J. Clean. Prod., 200, pp. 490–500.
• KUHN, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• LATOUR, B, AND BASTIDE, F. (1986). “Fact and Fiction Writing.” In Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology, ed. M. Callon, J. Law, and A. Rip. London: Macmillan.
• LATOUR, B. (1981). “Who Is Agnostic? Alternatively, What Could It Mean to Study Science?” In Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present, ed. R. Jones and R. Kuclick. Greenwich: JAI Press, 3: pp. 199–216.
• LATOUR, B. (1983). “Give Me a Laboratory, and I Will Raise the World.” In Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, ed. K. Knorr and M. Mulkay. Los Angeles: Sage.
• LATOUR, B. (1986). “Visualization and Cognition.” In Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present, ed. H. Kuclick. Greenwich: JAI Press, 6:1-40.
• LATOUR, B. (1986a). “The Powers of Association.” In Power, Action, and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? Ed. John Law. Sociological Review Monograph. Keele: Methuen, pp. 264–280.
• LATOUR, B. (1988). “A Politics of Explanation” In Knowledge and Reflexivity, ed. S. Woolgar. London: Sage.
• LATOUR, B. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Soziale Welt, 369-381.
• LATOUR, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• LEFEBVRE, H. (2014). Critique of Everyday Life. Verso.
• LYNCH, M. (1985). Art and Artifact in the Laboratory. London: Routledge.
• NGUYEN, C. (2020). Echo Chambers and Epistemic Bubbles. Episteme, 17(2), 141-161. doi:10.1017/ epi.2018.32
• PERSILY, N, AND JOSHUA A. TUCKER, eds. (2020). “Social Media and Democracy.” Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform, i-i. SSRC Anxieties of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• SHAYEGAN, D. (1997). Cultural Schizophrenia: Islamic societies confronting the West. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press.