Türk GDO Karşıtı Hareketinde Çok Katmanlı Çerçeveleme

Öz

Yerel ve küresel bağlamlar arasında çerçeveleme üzerine yapılan çalışmalar çoğunlukla yerel aktörlerin evrenselleştirici iddialardan yararlanma yollarına odaklanırlar. GDO’ların üretildiği, ticaretinin yapıldığı ve düzenlendiği siyasi ve ekonomik süreçler, yerelden ulusala, bölgeselden küresele farklı ölçeklerin araştırılmasını gerektirmektedir. Bu çalışma, Türk GDO karşıtı hareketin çok katmanlı çerçeveleme faaliyetlerini analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. 2004 yılı Ekim ayında GDO’ya Hayır Platformu, Friends of the Earth’ün Dünya Ticaret Örgütü’nün GDO’larla ilgili kararına karşı geliştirdiği Bite Back Bite Back kampanyasının devamı niteliğindeki Canavar Domates Turu’nu Türkiye’de düzenledi. Platform aktivistleri, stratejilerini GDO’ları Türkiye’nin siyasi ve ekonomik gerçekleriyle ilgili çevresel, tarımsal ve ekonomik konularla ilişkilendirerek ve tartışmanın küresel boyutlarıyla ilgili olarak daha geniş bir çerçevede yankı uyandıracak şekilde tanımladılar. 2007 ve 2009 yılları arasında 12 şehirde ulusal ve yerel GDO karşıtı aktivistlerle yapılan görüşmelere dayanan bu makale, çerçeveleme sürecinin temel görevlerinin (diagnostik, prognostik, motivasyonel) yerel, ulusal ve küresel ölçeklerle nasıl ve neden ilişkilendiğini araştırmaktadır. Türkiye’de GDO karşıtı hareket, sorunu ve sorumluluğu küresel düzeyde tanımlayarak diagnostik çerçeveler gerçekleştirilecek eylemleri ve planları ulusal düzeyde önererek, prognostik çerçeveler ve son olarak eylem gerekçelerini yerel düzeyde oluşturarak motivasyonel çerçeveler geliştirdi. Hareket, çevre ve sağlık sorunları, tarım sorunları ve tüketici haklarının geniş bir koalisyonunu temsil etti. Sorunları ve talepleri yerel, ulusal ve küresel olarak yorumlayarak GDO sorununu çok katmanlı bir şekilde çerçeveleyerek geniş bir siyasi alan arasında köprü kurdu. Aktivistler, GDO’ların ülke çapında yasaklanmasına yönelik farklı ölçekleri birbiriyle ilişkilendirerek tutarlı bir anlatı yaratmayı başardı.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Toplumsal Hareketler
• Biyoteknoloji
• Çerçeveleme
• GDO'lar
• Çevre Hareketleri

Multilayered framing in Turkish Anti-GM Movement

Öz

Studies on framing between local and global contexts mostly focus on the ways in which local actors draw upon universalizing claims. Political and economic processes within which the GMOs are produced, traded and regulated invite an exploration of different scales – from local to national, from regional to global. This study aims to analyze the multilayered framing activities of Turkish anti-GM mobilization. In October 2004, ‘No to GMOs Platform’ (GDO’ya Hayır Platformu) in Turkey organized the Monster Tomato Tour which was the continuation of Friends of the Earth’s Bite Back Campaign against the World Trade Organization ruling on GMOs. Platform activists defined their strategy by linking GMOs with environmental, agricultural, and economic issues that are relevant to Turkish political and economic realities and resonate with a larger frame in relation to global aspects of the controversy. Based on interviews with key national and local anti-GM activists in 12 cities conducted between 2007 and 2009, this paper probes how and why core tasks of framing process – diagnostic, prognostic, motivational – relate to local, national, and global scales. The Turkish anti-GM movement developed i) diagnostic frames, identifying a problem and attribute blame at global scale ii) prognostic frames, offering actions and plans at national scale iii) motivational frames being a rationale for action mainly at the local scale. The movement bridged a vast political space by framing the GM issue in a multilayered way by interpreting the grievances and claims locally, nationally, and globally. The movement represents a broad coalition of environmental and health concerns, agriculture issues and consumer rights. Activists were able to create a coherent narrative by connecting different scales towards a nation-wide ban on GMOs.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• GMOs
• Social Movements
• Environmental Movements
• Framings
• Biotechnology

Kaynakça

1. 8th Five Year Development Plan 2001-2005. http://ekutup.dpt.gov.tr/plan/viii/plan8i.pdf (Accessed 9 April 2018).
2. 9th Development Plan 2007-2013. http://ekutup.dpt.gov.tr/plan/ix/9developmentplan.pdf (Accessed 5 April 2018)
3. Adem, Ç. (2005) “Non-state Actors and Environmentalism” in Adaman, F., and Arsel, M. (Ed.) Environmentalism in Turkey: Between Democracy and Development?, Hants, UK: Ashgate, 71-86.
4. Akbulut, B. (2014) “Neither Poor Nor Rich But “Malcontent”: An Anatomy of Contemporary Environmentalisms”, Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2:1, 9-24. doi: 10.14782/ SBD.201416298
5. Aksoy, S. (2012) “Genetiği Değiştirilmiş Organizmalara İlişkin Tartışmaların Türk Basınında Çerçevelenmesi”, Selçuk İletişim,7-3, 191-205.
6. Aksu, C., Erensü,S. &Evren, E. (2016) Sudan Sebepler: Türkiye’de Neoliberal Su-Enerji Politikaları ve Direnişler, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
7. Amenta, E., Halfmann, D., & Young, M. (1999) “The Strategies and Contexts of Social Protest: Political Mediation and the Impact of the Townsend Movement”, Mobilization, 4:1, 1-23. doi: 10.17813/ maiq.4.1.y66180053qg16252.
8. Andrée, P. (2011) “Civil Society and the Political Economy of GMO Failures in Canada: A Neo-Gramscian Analysis.” Environmental Politics, 20:2, 173–191. doi: 10.1080/09644.016.2011.551023.

9. Ansell, C., Maxwell, R., & Sicurelli, D. (2006) “ Protesting Food: NGOs and Political Mobilization in Europe,” in Ansell C.and Vogel D., (Ed.) What’s the Beef? The Contested Governance of European Food Safety. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 97-123.
10. Arancibia, F. (2013) “Challenging the Bioeconomy: The Dynamics of Collective Action in Argentina.” Technology in Society, 35:2, 79–92. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2013.01.008.
11. Aslan D., Şengelen M, (2010) Farklı boyutlarıyla Genetiği Değiştirilmiş Organizmalar, Ankara: Ankara Tabip Odası.
12. Aspers, P., Corte, U. (2019) “What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research?”, Qualitative Sociology 42:2, 139– 160. doi: 10.1007/s11133.019.9413-7.
13. Attar, A., Genus, A. (2014) Framing public engagement: A critical discourse analysis of GM Nation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 88, 241–250. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2014.07.005.
14. Baykan, B.G. (2019) “What did the Turkish climate movement learn from a global policy failure? Frame shift after the Copenhagen Climate Summit”, Turkish Studies, 20:4, 637-655. doi: 10.1080/14683.849.2019.1601563
15. Bayram, M. (2008) Ambalajlar, Silahlar, Açlar. İstanbul:Hayy Kitap.
16. Benford R.D., Snow D.A. (2000) “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment”, Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611.
17. Biosafety Bill (2010) Retrieved from https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.5977.pdf
18. Buttel, F.H. (2003) “Environmental sociology and the explanation of environmental reform”, Organization & Environment, 16:3, 306-344. doi: 10.1177/108.602.6603256279.
19. Çoban, A. (2004) “Community-based Ecological Resistance: The Bergama Movement in Turkey”, Environmental Politics, 13:2, 438-60. doi: 10.1080/096.440.1042000209658.
20. della Porta D., Piazza, G. (2008) “Local Contention Global Framing”, in Rootes C. (Ed.) Acting Locally, Local Environmental Mobilizations and Campaigns, London, Routledge. 144–165.
21. della Porta D. (2014) “In-depth Interviews” in della Porta, D. (Ed.) Methodological Practices in Social Movement Research, London: Oxford University Press, 228-261.
22. Demirkol, K. (2010) GDO: Cağdaş Esaret, İstanbul: Kaynak Yayınları.
23. Doherty, B., Hayes, G. (2012) “Tactics, Traditions, and Opportunities: British and French Crop Trashing Actions in Comparative Perspective”, European Journal of Political Research, 51:4, 540-562. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2011.02048.x.
24. Doherty, B., Hayes, G. (2014) “Having Your Day in Court: Judicial Opportunity and Tactical Choice in Anti- GMO Campaigns in France and the United Kingdom”, Comparative Political Studies, 47:1, 3–29. doi: 10.1177/001.041.4012439184.
25. Duru, B. (1995) Çevre Bilincinin Gelişim Sürecinde Türkiye’de Gönüllü Çevre Kuruluşları, (Unpublished Master’s Thesis) Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara, Turkey.
26. Ekoloji Kolektifi, TMMOB Ziraat Mühendisleri Odası (2010) Görünmez Elin Ekolojisi, Ankara.
27. Erbaş, H. (2008) Türkiye’de Biyoteknoloji ve Toplumsal Kesimler: Profesyoneller, Kentsel Tüketiciler ve Köylüler, Ankara Üniversitesi Biyoteknoloji Enstitüsü Yayınları No: 4.
28. Erensü, S., Kahraman, O. (2017) “The Work of a Few Trees: Gezi, Politics and Space”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 41:1, 19-36. doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.12387.
29. Fitting E.M. (2011) The Struggle for maize: Campesinos, workers, and transgenic corn in the countryside. Durham, NC, Duke University Press.
30. Friends of the Earth Europe (2004) Bite Back: WTO hands off our food! Monster Tomato Tour 2003-2004. [Brochure]. Brussels: Belgium.
31. Gaskell, G., Bauer, Martin W. (2001) “Biotechnology in the years of controversy: a social scientific perspective”, in: Gaskell, George and Bauer, M. W., (Eds.) Biotechnology 1996-1999: The Years of Controversy. London: Science Museum Press. 3-14
32. Gillan, K., Pickerill, J., & Webster, F. (2008) Anti-War Activism: New Media and Protest in the Information Age, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
33. Goldfarb, L., van der Haar. G. (2016) “The Moving Frontiers of Genetically Modified Soy Production: Shifts in Land Control in the Argentinian Chaco”, Journal of Peasant Studies, 43:2, 562–582. doi: 10.1080/03066.150.2015.1041107.
34. Goffman, E. (1974) Frame Analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
35. Hamsici, M. (2011) Dereler ve İsyanlar, Ankara:Nota Bene Yayın Yayınları.
36. Heller, C. (2002) “From Scientific risk to paysan savoir-faire: Peasant expertise in the French and Global Debate over GMOs”, Science as Culture, 11:1, 5-37. doi: 10.1080/095.054.30120115707.
37. Hilson, C. (2009) “Framing the Local and the Global in the Anti-Nuclear Movement: Law and the Politics of Place”, Journal of Law and Society, 36:1, 94-109. Doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6478.2009.00458.x.
38. ISAAA (2018) Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops in 2018 (ISAAA Brief 54).
39. Johnston, H. (1995) “A methodology for frame analysis: from discourse to cognitive schemata” in Johnston, H., Klandermans, B. (Eds.), Social Movements and Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 217-246.
40. Kadirbeyoğlu, Z. (2018) “Waterproof development?: Impact of advocacy networks on anti-dam movements in India and Turkey” in Jassal,T. S. & Turan, H. (Eds.) New Perspectives on India and Turkey, London:Routledge. 182-194.
41. Kettnaker, V. (2001) “The European Conflict over Genetically-Engineered Crops” in Imig D., Tarrow, S. (Eds) Contentious Europeans, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. 205-232
42. Kinchy, A. (2010) “Epistemic Boomerang Expert Policy Advice As Leverage in the Campaign Against Transgenic Maize in Mexico”, Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 15:2, 179–198. doi: 10.17813/ maiq.15.2.a568g55h0k663k30.
43. Kingdon, J.W. (1984) Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, New York: Longman.
44. Klandermans, P. G., de Weerd, M. (1999) “Injustice and adversarial frames in a supranational political context: Farmers protest in the Netherlands and Spain” in D. della Porta, H. Kriesi, & D. Rucht (Eds.), Social Movements in a Globalizing World. Basingstoke: MacMillan.134-147.
45. Klepek, J. (2012) “Against the Grain: Knowledge Alliances and Resistance to Agricultural Biotechnology in Guatemala” Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 33:3, 310–325. doi: 10.1080/02255.189.2012.719824.
46. Knudsen, S. (2015) “Protests Against Energy Projects in Turkey: Environmental Activism Above Politics?,” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 43:3, 302–323. doi: 10.1080/13530.194.2015.1102707.
47. Koçer, Y. (2009, November 25) 20 milyon ton GDO’lu ürün tüketmişiz. Posta Retrieved from https://www.posta.com.tr/20-milyon-ton-gdolu-urun-tuketmisiz-9097
48. Krom, M.P., J. Dessein, & N. Erbout (2014) “Understanding relations between science, politics, and the public: the case of a GM field trial controversy in Belgium”” Sociologia Ruralis, 54:2, 21– 39. doi: 10.1111/soru.12031.
49. Lapegna, P. (2016) Soybeans and Power: Genetically Modified Crops, Environmental Politics and Social Movement in Argentina. New York: Oxford University Press. doi :10.1093/acprof: oso/978.019.0215132.001.0001.
50. Levidow, L., Boschert, K. (2011) ”Segregating GM crops: why a contentious ’risk’ issue in Europe?” Science as Culture, 20:2, 255– 279. doi: 10.1080/09505.431.2011.563570.
51. Leguizamón, A. (2020) Seeds of Power: Environmental Injustice and Genetically Modified Soybeans in Argentina. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
52. McAdam, D., Tarrow,S., & Tilly, C. (2001) Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Miller, B. (1997) “Political action and the geography of defense investment: Geographical scale and the representation of the Massachusetts Miracle”, Political Geography, 16:2,171–85. doi: 10.1016/S0962- 6298(96)00049-2.
53. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (2021) GM Feed, Retrieved from https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/ Konular/Gida-Ve-Yem-Hizmetleri/Yem-Hizmetleri/GDOlu-Yemler Erişim Tarihi 02/04/2021.
54. Motta, R. (2015) “Transnational Discursive Opportunities and Social Movement Risk Frames Opposing GMOs”, Social Movement Studies, 14:5, 576-595. doi: 10.1080/14742.837.2014.947253.
55. No to GMO’s Platform (2004) Genetically Modified Organisms Declaration. İstanbul: Turkey.
56. Öniş, Z. (2007) “Conservative globalists versus defensive nationalists: political parties and paradoxes of Europeanization in Turkey”, Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans, 9:3, 247-261. doi: 10.1080/146.131.90701689902
57. Özdamar, T.H. (2009) “Biotechnology in Turkey: an overview”. Biotechnology Journal, 4:7, 981-991. doi: 10.1002/biot.200900145.
58. Özer, K. (2010) Deccal Tabakta, İstanbul:Hayy Kitap
59. Paker, H. (2018) “Contesting the “Third Bridge” in İstanbul: Local environmentalism, cosmopolitan attachments?” in Fisher-Onar,N.,Pearce, S.C. & Keyman, E.F. (Eds.) İstanbul: Living With Difference in a Global City. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 145-160.
60. Pearson, T. W. (2012) “Transgenic-Free Territories in Costa Rica: Networks, Place, and the Politics of Life”, American Ethnologist, 39:1, 90–105. doi: 10.1111/j.1548-1425.2011.01350.x.
61. Peschard, K. (2012) “Unexpected Discontent: Exploring New Developments in Brazil’s Transgenics Controversy”, Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 33:3, 326–337. doi: 10.1080/02255.189.2012.719826
62. Pehlevan, H., Şakacı, B.K. (2018) Cerattepe Çevre Hareketi, Bursa: Ekin Basım Yayın.
63. Purdue, D.A. (2000) Anti-genetiX: the emergence of the anti-GM movement, Ashgate:Aldershot.
64. Reilly, N. (2007) “Linking local and global feminist advocacy: Framing women’s rights as human rights in the Republic of Ireland”, Women’s Studies International Forum, 30:2,114-133. doi: 10.1016/j. wsif.2007.01.004.
65. Rootes, C. (1999) Environmental Movements: Local, national and global, London & Portland, OR: Frank Cass
66. Schnurr, M.A. (2013) “Biotechnology and bio‐hegemony in Uganda: unraveling the social relations underpinning the promotion of genetically modified crops into new African markets”, Journal of Peasant Studies, 40:4, 639– 658.Doi: 10.1080/03066.150.2013.814106.
67. Schurman, R., Munro W.A. (2010) Fighting for the Future of Food: Activists versus Agribusiness in the Struggle over Biotechnology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
68. Scoones, I. (2008) Mobilizing Against GM Crops in India, South Africa and Brazil, Journal of Agrarian Change, 8:8, 315-344. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0366.2008.00172.x.
69. Seidman, G. W. (2000) “Adjusting the Lens: What do Globalizations, Transnationalism, and Anti-apartheid Movement Mean for Social Movement Theory?” in Guidry, J.A., Kennedy, M.D., & Zald M.N. (Eds.) Globalizations and Social Movements: Culture, Power and the Transnational Public Sphere. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 339-358.
70. Seifert, F. (2017) “Measuring the Europeanization of the Anti-GM Movement: Evidence from Five EU Countries”, Mobilization, 22:3, 363–383. doi: 10.17813/1086-671X-20-3-363
71. Smith, J. (2004) “Transnational Processes and Movements” in Snow, D.A., Soule, S.A, & Kriesi, H., (Eds.) The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. MA and Oxford, UK, Blackwell Publishing. 311-337.
72. Snow, D.A. (2004) “Framing Processes, Ideology and Discursive Fields” in Snow. D.A., Soule S. A, and Kriesi H, (Eds.) The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. MA and Oxford, UK, Blackwell Publishing. 380-412.
73. Snow, D.A., Benford R.D. (1988) “Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization”, in Klandermans. B., Kriesi, H., & Tarrow, S. (Eds) From Structure to Action: Comparing Social Movement Research across Cultures, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.197-217.
74. Snow, D.A., Benford R.D., (1992) “Master Frames and Cycles of Protest” in Morris, A.D, Mueller, C.Mc. (Eds.) Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, New Haven: Yale University Press. 133-155.
75. Snow, D.A., Rochford, E. B., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. (1986) “Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization and Movement Participation”, American Sociological Review, 51:4, 464-481. doi: 10.2307/2095581.
76. Steinberg, M. W. (1995) “The Roar of the Crowd: Repertoires of Discourse and Collective Action among the Spitalfields Silk Weavers in Nineteenth-Century London.” in Traugott, M.(Ed.) Repertoires and Cycles of Collective Action. Durham and London: Duke University Press. 845-872.
77. TBBDM (2021) Biyogüvenlik Kurulu Toplantı Kararları Retrieved from http://www.tbbdm.gov.tr/ ToplantiKararlari2.aspx
78. Tilly, C. Tarrow, S. (2007) Contentious Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
79. Tokar, B. (2001) Redesigning Life? The Worldwide Challenge to Genetic Engineering. London: Zed Books. Topal, Ş. (2007) Değiştirilen Sen mi, Gen mi, Evren mi? İstanbul:Yeni İnsan Yayınları.
80. Tosun, J. (2014) “Agricultural Biotechnology in Central and Eastern Europe Determinants of Cultivation Bans”, Sociologia Ruralis, 54:3, 62-381. doi: 10.1111/soru.12046.
81. Towers, G. (2000) “Applying the political geography of scale: grassroots strategies and environmental justice”, The Professional Geographer, 52:1, 23–36. doi: 10.1111/0033-0124.00202.
82. Tucker, C. (2013) “Using Social Network Analysis and Framing to Assess Collective Identity in the Genetic Engineering Resistance Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand”, Social Movement Studies, 12:1, 81-95. doi: 10.1111/0033-0124.00202.
83. Turhan, E., Özkaynak,B.,& Aydın, C.İ. (2019) “Coal, ash, and other tales: The making and remaking of the anti-coal movement in Aliağa, Turkey” in İnal, O. and Turhan, E. (Eds.) Transforming Socio-Natures in Turkey: Landscapes, State and Environmental Movements. Oxon and New York, Routledge.166-187.
84. TÜSEV (2013) The Yemezler (We Won’t Eat It) Campaign Case Analysis Retrieved from https://tusev.org. tr/usrfiles/images/YemezlerVakaAnaliziENG.06.11.13.pdf
85. Uncu, B. A. (2016) “From a Conflictual Coalition to a Social Movement? The Transformative Capacity of the Gezi Protests”, Southeastern Europe, 40:2, 188-216 doi: 10.1111/0033-0124.00202.
86. Velardi, S., Selfa T. (2020) “Framing local: an analysis of framing strategies for genetically modified organism (GMO) labeling initiatives in the northeastern U.S”, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 45:3, 366-389. doi: 10.1080/21683.565.2020.1818159.
87. Williams, G. (2008) “Cosmopolitanism and the French Anti-GM Movement”, Nature and Culture, 3:1, 115- 133. doi: 10.3167/nc.2008.030108.
88. Williams, R.W. (1999) “Environmental injustice in America and its politics of scale”, Political Geography, 18:1, 49–73. doi: 10.1016/S0962-6298(98)00076-6.
89. Yağcı, A.H. (2018) “Policy Knowledge, Collective Action and Advocacy Coalitions: Regulating GMOs in Turkey”, Journal of European Public Policy. 26:6, 927-945. doi: 10.1080/13501.763.2018.1509884.