Sevim Burak’s Protest Theatre: Understanding Sevim Burak Through Adorno

Öz

The purpose of this article is to explore Sevim Burak’s theatre through Adorno’s “negative dialectics” and “culture industry” theories. The article claims that Burak’s theatre is revolutionary in the sense that it challenges the traditional norms of theatre based on representation of real life. Burak, in contrast to traditional theatrical forms, creates a form negating real life and resisting against any form of mimetic representation. However, this does not turn her theatre into an apolitical, anti-social, or extremely individualistic one as Burak’s form is rooted in the social and parental background of the playwright. However, her unique form was expelled from the literary circles and has long been neglected by scholars, which the article claims is the result of the reflections of Adorno’s “culture industry” on the literary scene in Turkey. Thus, the final claim of the article is that Burak’s theatre is revolutionary and a protest not due to its subject matter but to its form.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sevim Burak
• Protest theatre
• Form in theatre
• Culture industry
• Negative dialectics

Sevim Burak’s Protest Theatre: Understanding Sevim Burak Through Adorno

Öz

The purpose of this article is to explore Sevim Burak’s theatre through Adorno’s “negative dialectics” and “culture industry” theories. The article claims that Burak’s theater is revolutionary in the sense that it challenges the traditional norms of theatre based on representation of real life. Burak, in contrast to traditional theatrical forms, creates a form negating the real life and resisting against any form of mimetic representation. However, this does not turn her theatre into an apolitical, anti-social, or extremely individualistic one as Burak’s form is rooted in the social and parental background of the playwright. However, her unique form was expelled from the literary circles and has long been neglected by scholars, which the article claims, is a result of the reflections of Adorno’s “culture industry” on the literary scene in Turkey. Thus, the final claim of the article is that Burak’s theatre is revolutionary and protest not due to its subject matter but to its form.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• sevim burak
• negative dialectics
• culture industry
• protest theatre
• form in theatre

Kaynakça

1. Adorno, T.W. Aesthetic Theory, Translated by R. Hullot-Kentor. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997. google scholar
2. Adorno, T.W. Culture Industry. Edited by J.M. Bernstein. London and New York: Routledge Classics, 2005. google scholar
3. Adorno, Theodor. “Reconciliation under Duress”, in Aesthetics and Politics. Edited by Ronald Taylor. London; New York: Verso Publishing, 1980. google scholar
4. Adorno: Kitle, Melankoli, Felsefe- Cogito Dergi. Edited by E. Efe Çakmak. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2020. google scholar
5. Aracagök, Zafer & Yalım, Burcu. “Spectacle, Speculative, Spectile: Situations in Sarah Kane, Sevim Burak etc.”, Third Text, (2010). 437-444. google scholar
6. Bir Usta Bir Dünya: Sevim Burak. Edited by Filiz Özdem. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2013. google scholar
7. Burak, Sevim. Sahibinin Sesi. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2020. google scholar
8. Burak, Sevim. Mach One’dan Mektuplar. İstanbul: Palto Yayınları, 2014. google scholar

9. Chris Thornhill and Ronny Miron, “Karl Jaspers”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edited by Edward N. Zalta (Spring 2020 Edition), google scholar https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/jaspers/. google scholar
10. Cough, Maria. “Back in the USSR: John Heartfield, Gustavs Klucis, and the Medium of Soviet Propaganda”, New German Critique, No.107. (2009), 133-183. google scholar
11. Demirtaş, Mustafa. Postyapısalcı Edebiyat Kuramı: Sevim Burak Edebiyatta Bir Tekillik Düşünürü. İstanbul: Otonom Yayınları, 2015. google scholar
12. Dow, Arthur Wesley. “Modernism in Art”, The American Magazine of Art 8. (1917), 113-116. google scholar
13. Driver, Tom F. Interview with Samuel Beckett, in Samuel Beckett: The Critical Heritage, Edited by Lawrence Graver and Raymond Federman.
14. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979. google scholar
15. Göknar, Erdağ. “The Novel in Turkish: narrative tradition to Nobel prize” in The Cambridge History of Turkey: Turkey in the Modern World, Ed.
16. Reşat Kasaba. Cambridge University Press, 2006, 472-503. google scholar
17. Gümüş, Şeyma. “Sevim Burak’ın Queer Nesneleri: Yanık Saraylar’da Eşya-İnsan İlişkileri, Öznellik ve Ötekilik”, Monograf 14. (2020), 60-82. google scholar
18. Güngörmüş, Nilüfer. “Sanatçının Annesinin Kızı olarak portresi”, YKY Feminizm Üzerine Konuşmalar Dizisi, Kadınlar, Kimlikler, Hafızalar, Psikanaliz ve Feminizm Paneli, (2005). google scholar
19. Güçbilmez, Beliz. “Tekinsiz Tiyatro: Sahibinin Sesi/Sevim Burak’ın Metninde Teatrallik ve Minör Sesin Temsili”, Tiyatro Araştırmaları Dergisi 16. (2003), 4-17. google scholar
20. Halman, Talat Sait. “Modern Turkish Literature: Disorientation and Reorientation”, Books Abroad, 46 (1972), 226-231. google scholar
21. Horkheimer, M. & Adorno, T.W. Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments, Edited by G.S.Noerr, Translated by E. Jephcott. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002. google scholar
22. Karpat, Kemal H. “Social Themes in Contemporary Turkish Literature”, The Middle East Journal, 14/1, (1960), 29-44. google scholar
23. Karpat, Kemal H. “Political Developments in Turkey, 1950-70”, Middle Eastern Studies 8/3 (1972), 349-375. google scholar
24. Kılınç, Ahmet. “Sevim Burak’ın Küçürek Öykücülüğü”, Turkish Studies (2011), 1983-1994. google scholar
25. Koçakoğlu, Bedia. Aşkın Şizofrenik Hali Sevim Burak. Konya: Palet Yayınları, 2009. google scholar
26. Koçakoğlu, Bedia. “Sevim Burak’ı Besleyen Damarlar”, Selçuk Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 17. (2007), 45-59. google scholar
27. Lambert Zuidervaart, “Theodor W. Adorno”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edited by Edward N. Zalta (Winter 2015Edition), google scholar https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/adorno/. google scholar
28. Lukâcs, Georg. “Realism in the Balance”, in Aesthetics andPolitics. Edited by Ronald Taylor. London; New York: Verso Publishing, 1980. google scholar
29. Marx, Karl. Capital Vol. I. Translated by Ben Fowkes. London: Penguin Classics: 1990. google scholar
30. Notos Dergi. İstanbul: Notos Yayınları, Ağustos-Eylül 2019. google scholar
31. Notos Dergi. İstanbul: Notos Yayınları, Aralık 2018-Ocak 2019. google scholar
32. Rabate, Jean-Michel. “Philosophizing with Beckett: Adorno and Badiou”, in A Companion to SamuelBeckett, edited by S.E. Gontarski, 97. Singapore: Wiley&Blackwell, 2010. google scholar
33. Roswitha Mueller, “Montage in Brecht”, Theatre Journal, Vol. 39, No.4. (1987), 473-486. google scholar
34. Şeyben, Burcu Yasemin. “(In)sight of Things: An Analysis of the Relation between Subjectivity and Reality in His Master’s Voice”, Third Text, 26 (2012), 745-755. google scholar
35. Varlık Dergisi. İstanbul: Varlık Yayınları, Aralık 2018. google scholar