Foucault ve ulusalcılık
Loading...
Date
2018-02-10
Authors
Karademir, Aret
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Uludağ Üniversitesi
Abstract
Michel Foucault’nun iktidar analizi ile Benedict Anderson, Ernest Gellner ve Eric Hobsbawm gibi isimlerden oluşan ulusalcılık çalışmalarının modernist okulu, ilk bakışta fark edilenden daha fazla ortak noktaya sahiptir. Hem Foucault hem de modernist okul modern iktidarın üretken bir yapıya sahip olduğunu savunur. Foucault için iktidar, insan doğasını, cinselliği, bilgiyi, bireyselliği ve gerçekliği baskılayan değil; onları üreten bir yapıya sahiptir. Benzer bir şekilde, modernist okul için ulus, ulusal dil ve ulusal kültür, ulus-devletin yapı taşlarına değil; onun ürünlerine tekabül eder. Ne var ki hem modernist okul hem de Foucault’cu analiz sorunludur. Bunun nedeni, modernist okulun ulus inşasını cinselliği; Foucault’nun ise disipline edilmiş cinsel özne kurgusunu ulusu hesaba katmadan analiz etmeye çalışmasıdır. Bu yazının amacı, ulus inşası ile cinsel özne kurgusunun birbirinden bağımsız analiz edilemeyeceğini ve Foucault’cu iktidar analizi ile modernist okulun ulus incelemesinin ötekinin işbirliği olmadan eksik kalmaya mahkûm olduğunu göstermektir.
Michel Foucault and the modernist school in the literature of nationalism have more in common than it looks at first sight. They both argue that modern power is productive. For Foucault, modern power produces the so-called human nature, as well as sexuality, knowledge, individuality, and truth. Similarly, for the modernist school, nation, national language, and national culture are the products of modern power, namely the nation state. However, neither the Foucaudian analysis of power nor that of the modernist school is sufficient in analyzing the functioning of power. The reason is that the modernist school gives an account of the construction of nation without taking sexuality into account; and Foucault analyzes the construction of disciplined sexual subjects without taking nation into account. The aim of this paper is to show how and why neither the Foucauldian account of the functioning of modern power, nor that of the modernist school is sufficient in analyzing power, as well as to argue that the Foucauldian account and the modernist school may complement one another.
Michel Foucault and the modernist school in the literature of nationalism have more in common than it looks at first sight. They both argue that modern power is productive. For Foucault, modern power produces the so-called human nature, as well as sexuality, knowledge, individuality, and truth. Similarly, for the modernist school, nation, national language, and national culture are the products of modern power, namely the nation state. However, neither the Foucaudian analysis of power nor that of the modernist school is sufficient in analyzing the functioning of power. The reason is that the modernist school gives an account of the construction of nation without taking sexuality into account; and Foucault analyzes the construction of disciplined sexual subjects without taking nation into account. The aim of this paper is to show how and why neither the Foucauldian account of the functioning of modern power, nor that of the modernist school is sufficient in analyzing power, as well as to argue that the Foucauldian account and the modernist school may complement one another.
Description
Keywords
Foucault, Ulusalcılık, Cinsellik, İktidar, Modernite, Nationalism, Sexuality, Power, Modernity
Citation
Karademir, A. (2018). "Foucault ve ulusalcılık". Kaygı. Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi, 30, 159-171.