Yaşlılık Hukukunun Anatomisi: ABD Örneğinde İçsel Farklılaşma ve Biyo-Politik Yönetimsellik

Öz

Bu çalışma, 20. yüzyılın son çeyreğinde Amerika Birleşik Devletleri merkezli olarak kurumsallaşan Yaşlılık Hukuku (Elder Law) disiplininin evrimini, Niklas Luhmann’ın sistem teorisi ve Michel Foucault’nun biyo-politik analizi üzerinden sosyolojik bir perspektifle incelemektedir. Makale kapsamında, Elder Law Jurnal ve Amerikan Barolar Birliği’nin Bifocal dergilerinin arşivleri ile Adalet Bakanlığı’nın yayımladığı The Elder Justice Roadmap gibi stratejik belgeler ve Better Call Saul dizisinden hareketle popüler kültüre yansımaları üzerinden bir içerik analizi yürütülmüştür. Analiz sonucunda, Yaşlılık Hukuku’nun salt bir branşlaşma faaliyeti olmadığı; aksine hukuk sisteminin demografik karmaşıklığı kendi operasyonel kodlarında (ehliyetli/ehliyetsiz) yeniden inşa ettiği otopoyetik bir içsel farklılaşma sürecinin ürünü olduğu saptanmıştır. Aynı zamanda bu hukuki tekniklerin, yaşlı bireyin biyolojik süreçlerini, zihinsel kapasitesini ve mali varlıklarını mikro-denetim ağlarına eklemleyen biyo-politik bir yönetimsellik stratejisi işlevi gördüğü tartışılmaktadır. Çalışma, hukukun bir “tercüme mekanizması” olarak işleyişi ile “iktidar teknolojisi” olarak nüfuz edişi arasındaki paradoksal ilişkiyi ortaya koyarak, Yaşlılık Hukuku’nun modern yönetimin biyo-medikal ve algoritmik bir uzantısına dönüşme eğilimini kuramsal düzeyde analiz etmekte; bu sürecin hukukun özgürleştirici potansiyeli ile yönetimsel işlevi arasındaki gerilimi nasıl yeniden biçimlendirdiğini sorgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yaşlılık hukuku
• Sistem teorisi
• Otopoyez
• Biyo-politika
• Yönetimsellik

The Anatomy of Elder Law: Internal Differentiation and Biopolitical Governmentality in the U.S. Case

Öz

This study examines the institutionalization of Elder Law as a distinct legal discipline in the United States during the final quarter of the twentieth century, through a dual theoretical lens combining Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory with Michel Foucault’s bio-political analytics. Drawing on a discursive archive reading of The Elder Law Journal, the ABA’s Bifocal, The Elder Justice Roadmap, and the television series Better Call Saul as a cultural illustration, the study finds that Elder Law does not constitute a mere branching specialization. Rather, it is seen as an autopoietic internal differentiation process through which the legal system reconstructs demographic complexity within its own operational codes. The archival evidence further suggests that these legal techniques function as a bio-political governmentality strategy, integrating the elderly individual’s cognitive capacity, biological condition, and financial assets into micro-surveillance networks. By illuminating the paradoxical relationship between law’s operation as a “translation mechanism” and its penetration as a “technology of power,” the study interrogates how Elder Law tends toward becoming a bio-medical and algorithmic extension of modern governance — and how this process reshapes the tension between law’s emancipatory potential and its managerial function.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Elder law
• Systems theory
• Autopoiesis
• Bio-politics
• Governmentality

Kaynakça

1. Alzheimer’s Association. (2025). 2025 Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures. Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 21(1). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12040760/ google scholar
2. American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging & American Psychological Association. (2005a). Assessment of older adults with diminished capacity: A handbook for lawyers. American Bar Association. google scholar
3. American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging, Commission on Disability Rights, Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice, & Section of Real Property, Trust and Estate Law. (2016). PRACTICAL tool for lawyers: Steps in supporting decision-making. American Bar Association. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_aging/resources/guardianship_law_practice/practical_tool/ google scholar
4. American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging. (2002). Navigating health care decisions for unbefriended older adults. Bifocal: Journal of the ABA Commission on Law and Aging, 23(4). google scholar
5. American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging. (2004). Voting rights of nursing home residents. Bifocal: Journal of the ABA Commission on Law and Aging, 25(3). google scholar
6. American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging. (2015, Mart-Nisan). POLST: Advance care planning for the seriously ill. Bifocal: Journal of the ABA Commission on Law and Aging, 36(4). https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_aging/publications/bifocal/vol_36/issue_4_ april2015/polst/ google scholar
7. American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging. (2019a). Lawyer-clinician collaboration in advance care planning. Bifocal: Journal of the ABA Commission on Law and Aging, 40(4). google scholar
8. American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging. (2020a, Mart). Emergency health decisions and COVID-19: Capacity assessment, healthcare proxies, and resource allocation ethics. Bifocal: Journal of the ABA Commission on Law and Aging, 41(4). google scholar

9. American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging. (2020b, Temmuz-Ağustos). It’s time to defund nursing homes. Bifocal: Journal of the ABA Commission on Law and Aging, 41(6). https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_aging/publications/bifocal/vol-41/vol-41--issue-no-6--july-august-2020-/defund-nursing-homes/ google scholar
10. American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging. (2023a). Neuroscience and legal capacity: Emerging challenges for elder law. Bifocal: Journal of the ABA Commission on Law and Aging, 44(4). google scholar
11. American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging. (2024b). Mini-Mental State Exam in legal capacity determinations: Standardization and limitations. Bifocal: Journal of the ABA Commission on Law and Aging, 45(5). google scholar
12. American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging. (2025b, Haziran). Behind the screen: Elder financial and technology abuse in the age of AI. Bifocal: Journal of the ABA Commission on Law and Aging, 46(5). https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_aging/publications/bifocal/ vol46/vol46issue5/elderabuseandartificialintelligence/ google scholar
13. Andrews, M. D. (1997). The elderly in guardianship: A crisis of constitutional proportions. The Elder Law Journal, 5(1), 75–116. google scholar
14. Bradley, S. (2025). Behind the screen: Elder financial and technology abuse in the age of AI. Bifocal: Journal of the ABA Commission on Law and Aging, 46(5). American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging. google scholar
15. Brooks, S., Grant, R., & Bonamarte, M. F. (2020, Temmuz-Ağustos). States move to shield LTC facilities from civil liability. Bifocal: Journal of the ABA Commission on Law and Aging, 41(6). American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging. google scholar
16. Connolly, M.-T., Brandl, B., & Breckman, R. (2014). The elder justice roadmap: A stakeholder initiative to respond to an emerging health, justice, financial and social crisis. U.S. Department of Justice & U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. google scholar
17. Crishon, T. (2025). We cannot wait: Aging with dignity demands housing with access. Bifocal: Journal of the ABA Commission on Law and Aging, 46(4). American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging. google scholar
18. Doron, I. (2005). Elder law in Israel. Journal of International Aging Law & Policy, 1(1), 1–28. google scholar
19. Doron, I. (2020). 25 years of elder law: An integrative and historical account of the field of law and aging. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 21(1), 1–28. google scholar
20. Eltis, K. (2005). Predicating dignity on autonomy? The need for further inquiry into the ethics of tagging and tracking dementia patients with GPS technology. The Elder Law Journal, 13(2), 387–416. google scholar
21. Foucault, M. (1992). Hapishanenin doğuşu (M. A. Kılıçbay, Çev.). İmge Kitabevi Yayınları. (Orijinal eser 1975’te yayımlanmıştır) google scholar
22. Foucault, M. (2002). Toplumu savunmak gerekir (Ş. Aktaş, Çev.). Yapı Kredi Yayınları. google scholar
23. Foucault, M. (2013). Güvenlik, toprak, nüfus: Collège de France dersleri (1977-1978) (E. Canaslan, Çev.). İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları. (Orijinal çalışma basım tarihi 2004). google scholar
24. Frolik, L. A. (1993). The developing field of elder law: A historical perspective. The Elder Law Journal, 1(1), 1–18. google scholar
25. Frolik, L. A. (2002). The developing field of elder law redux: Ten years after. The Elder Law Journal, 10(1), 1–14. google scholar
26. Fry, R. (2026, 9 Ocak). Baby Boomers are aging, but still numerous. Pew Research Center. https:// www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/01/09/baby-boomers-aging/ Guardianship of Kowalski, 382 N.W.2d 861 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). google scholar
27. Hughes, S. L. (2003). Legal issues related to bank reporting of suspected elder financial abuse. Bifocal: Journal of the ABA Commission on Law and Aging, 24(4). google scholar
28. Johns, A. F. (1999). Ten years after: Where is the constitutional crisis with procedural safeguards and due process in guardianship adjudication. The Elder Law Journal, 7(1), 33–152. google scholar
29. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2023). Medicaid long-term care services and supports. KFF. https:// www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/medicaid-home-community-based-services/ google scholar
30. Kaplan, R. L. (1995). Top ten myths of social security. The Elder Law Journal, 3(2), 191–214. Kaplan, R. L. (2017). Founding faculty advisor’s perspective. The Elder Law Journal, 25(1), 1–6. Karp, N. (2002). Commission initiates project on health care decision-making for the “unbefriended” elderly. Bifocal: Journal of the ABA Commission on Law and Aging, 23(3), 1–2. google scholar
31. Knauer, N. J. (2012). “Gen silent”: Advocating for LGBT elders. The Elder Law Journal, 19(2), 289–336. google scholar
32. Knauer, N. J. (2024). The Development of “Elder Law” In the United States. https://doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.4924969 google scholar
33. Kohn, N. A., & Spurgeon, E. D. (2010). Elder law teaching and scholarship: An empirical analysis of an evolving field. Journal of Legal Education, 59(3), 414–434. google scholar
34. Kohn, N. A., & Spurgeon, E. D. (2014). A call to expand elder law education. Bifocal: Journal of the ABA Commission on Law and Aging, 35(5). google scholar
35. Levy, K., Kilgour, L., & Berridge, C. (2019). Regulating privacy in public/private space: The case of nursing home monitoring laws. Elder Law Journal, 26(2), 323–364. google scholar
36. Luhmann, N. (1982). The differentiation of society (S. Holmes & C. Larmore, Trans.). Columbia University Press. google scholar
37. Luhmann, N. (1988a). The unity of the legal system. In G. Teubner (Ed.), Autopoietic law: A new approach to law and society (pp. 12–35). Walter de Gruyter. google scholar
38. Luhmann, N. (1988b). Closure and openness: On reality in the world of law. In G. Teubner (Ed.), Autopoietic law: A new approach to law and society (pp. 335–348). Walter de Gruyter. google scholar
39. Luhmann, N. (1989). Law as a social system. Northwestern University Law Review, 83(1–2), 136–150. google scholar
40. Luhmann, N. (2004). Law as a social system (K. A. Ziegert, Trans.; F. Kastner, R. Nobles, D. Schiff, & R. Ziegert, Eds.). Oxford University Press. google scholar
41. Martin, N. (2009). Consumer scams and the elderly: Preserving independence through shifting default rules. The Elder Law Journal, 17(1), 1–44. google scholar
42. Mather, M., Jacobsen, L. A., & Pollard, K. M. (2015). Aging in the United States. Population Bulletin, 70(2). Population Reference Bureau. google scholar
43. Mbembe, A. (2003). Necropolitics. Public Culture, 15(1), 11–40. google scholar
44. Milne, A. (2025). Silver tsunami or silver rush? Extracting value from elders. The Elder Law Journal, 33(1), 109-166. google scholar
45. Morgan, R. C. (2010). The future of elder law practice. William Mitchell Law Review, 37(1), 1–48. Muir, D. M. (2006). The U.S. culture of employee ownership and 401(k) plans. The Elder Law Journal, 14(1), 1–46. google scholar
46. National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys. (2025). About NAELA. NAELA. https://www.naela. org/About google scholar
47. Okrent, D. R., & Salazar, C. T. (2009). Introduction to elder law. Journal of Retirement Planning, 12(1), 13–20. google scholar
48. Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999). google scholar
49. Parra, P. N. B., Atanasov, V., Whittle, J., Meurer, J., Luo, Q., Zhang, R., & Black, B. (2022). The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the elderly: Population fatality rates, COVID mortality percentage, and life expectancy loss. The Elder Law Journal, 30(1), 33-84. google scholar
50. Pohl, A. E. (1995). Introduction: What is elder law anyway. Nova Law Review, 19(2), 459–464. Polisky, R. A. (1995). Criminalizing physical and emotional elder abuse. The Elder Law Journal, 3(2), 377–412. google scholar
51. Prosser, A. (2024). Affirming older adults as champions for intergenerational justice and climate reform. Bifocal: Journal of the ABA Commission on Law and Aging, 45(3). American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging. google scholar
52. Raymond, A. (2023). The hospital to guardianship pipeline. Bifocal: Journal of the ABA Commission on Law and Aging, 44(6). American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging. https:// www.americanbar.org/groups/law_aging/publications/bifocal/vol44/bif-vol44-issue6/hospital- guardianship-pipeline/ google scholar
53. Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. The British Journal of Sociology, 43(2), 173–205. https://doi.org/10.2307/591464 google scholar
54. Rose, N., & Valverde, M. (1998). Governed by law?. Social & Legal Studies, 7(4), 541–551. https:// doi.org/10.1177/096466399800700405 google scholar
55. Sabatino, C. P. (2001). Assessing clients with diminished capacity. Bifocal: Journal of the ABA Commission on Law and Aging, 22(4), 1. google scholar
56. Sammin, K., & Hurme, S. B. (2004). Guardianship and voting rights. Bifocal: Journal of the ABA Commission on Law and Aging, 26(1), 11–14. google scholar
57. Scoles, E. F. (1997). Foreword: Acceleration of death of the terminally ill with physician assistance. The Elder Law Journal, 5(2), 213–222. google scholar
58. Sklar, T. (2019). Elderly gun ownership and the wave of state red flag laws: An unintended consequence that could help many. The Elder Law Journal, 27(1), 35-50. google scholar
59. Smith, A., & Sabatino, C. P. (2004). Voting by residents of nursing homes and assisted living facilities: State law accommodations. Bifocal: Journal of the ABA Commission on Law and Aging, 26(1), 1–10. google scholar
60. Spade, D. (2015). Normal life: Administrative violence, critical trans politics, and the limits of law. Duke University Press. google scholar
61. Teubner, G. (1987). Evolution of autopoietic law. In G. Teubner (Ed.), Autopoietic law: A new approach to law and society (pp. 217–241). Walter de Gruyter. google scholar
62. U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). By 2030, all baby boomers will be age 65 or older. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/12/by-2030-all-baby-boomers-will-be-age-65-or-older.html google scholar
63. U.S. Census Bureau. (2024). Vintage 2024 national population estimates. https://www.census.gov/ data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-national-detail.html google scholar
64. Wood, E. (2019, Mayıs-Haziran). WINGS groups take off. Bifocal: Journal of the ABA Commission on Law and Aging, 40(5). https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_aging/publications/bifocal/ vol-40/vol-40--issue-5/wings-groups-take-off-by-erica-wood-/ google scholar