Neoliberalizm, Kamusallık, Yurttaşlık, No: 16 - 12/2019
Başlık
:
Neoliberalizm, Kamusallık, Yurttaşlık
Yazar(lar)
:
Gülben Salman
Title
:
Neoliberalism, Publicity, Citizenship
Anahtar Kelimeler
:
Neoliberalizm, Yurttaşlık, Kamusallık, Vita Activa, Vita Contemplativa
Key Words
:
Neoliberalism, Citizenship, Publicity, Vita Activa, Vita Contemplativa
Özet 1 / Abstract 1
:
İçinde bulunduğumuz siyasal iklim, kendine özgü bir rasyonalitesi ve yönetim mantığına sahip olduğu kabul edilen neoliberal bir düzen olarak adlandırılmaktadır. Neoliberalizmin, varoluşun tüm boyutlarını ekonomik ölçülere göre düzenleyen kendine has bir tavrının olduğu ve bu tavrın demokrasinin temel unsurlarını, özellikle de siyasal karakterini çözüp dağıttığı iddia edilmektedir (Brown, 2018). Başka bir şekilde ifade edilirse demos’un, halkın, siyasal özne olma iddiasının, bu yeni düzende teorik açıdan ortadan kalktığı düşünülmektedir. Tarihsel olarak, siyaset felsefesinin ilk metinlerinde başat düşünce Homo Politicus olarak insanın Eski Yunan’da polis içinde yaşamaya yazgılı olduğu ve polis dışında bir varoluşunun mümkün olmadığı bir durumu betimlemekteydi (Platon, Aristoteles). Modern döneme gelindiğindeyse, sözleşme kuramlarının seferber ettiği halk egemenliği kavramının çerçevesi içinde insan, yurttaş olarak kamusallık ve siyasal haklarla donatılmıştır (Locke, Rousseau). Bugüne geldiğimizdeyse, neoliberal çağın öznesinin artık Homo Oeconomicus olduğu iddia edilmektedir (Brown, 2018). Bu türden bir yönetimsellik mantığında (Foucault, 2015), insan ihtiyaçları ve arzularının hepsinin karlı bir girişime dönüştüğü ve insanın ekonomik ölçülere göre düzenlendiği iddia edilmektedir. Buradaki düzenleme bir parasallaşmadan söz etmek anlamına gelmez. Her açıdan, örneğin, eğitim, sağlık, esenlik, aile hayatı gibi konularda çağdaş piyasa özneleri gibi düşünüp davranmamız, neoliberalizmin yarattığı öznelliğin bir sonucudur. Neoliberal rasyonalite, piyasa modelini insani ihtiyaçlar açısından her alana dağıtarak, insanları en ince ayrıntısına kadar piyasa aktörleri biçiminde, homo oeconomicus olarak yapılandırır (Brown, 2018). Bazı düşünürler ise Foucaultcu anlamda biyo-iktidarın dahi yerini daha ileri bir düzey olan psiko-iktidara bıraktığını ve bu durumda psikolojik tekniklerin (Stiegler, 2012) artık insanın ruhunu ele geçirerek “psikopolitik” varlıklar (Han, 2019) olarak tanımladığının altını çizmektedirler. Bütün bu tanımlamalarda ortak olan görüş, bugünün başat yönetim biçimi olan neoliberalizmin, demokrasinin anlam ve içeriğini piyasa değerleriyle doldurmasının bir sonucu olarak (Brown, 2018), herkesin kendini bir şirket olarak görüp, kendini “kendi şirketinin kendini sömüren işçisi” olarak “hem efendi hem köle” olarak kurması ve eskinin sınıf mücadelesinin “insanın kendisiyle iç savaşı” haline dönüştüğünün kabul edilmesidir (Han, 2019). Neoliberal psikopolitika, herkesi kendi tekilliğinde “ruh”unu ele geçirerek sömürmektedir. Neoliberal rejimin öznesi “kendini optimize etme buyruğuyla, sürekli olarak daha fazla performans gösterme baskısıyla harap olur”, dahası artık “herkes kendinin panoptikonudur”, “psikopolitik bir yönlendirmeye” durmaksızın maruz kalır ve yalnızca “kendini sömüren bir kendilik girişimcisidir” (Han, 2019). Bu çalışma böyle bir durumda, şunu iddia etmeyi amaçlamaktadır: Belirli bir kamusallık imkânı ortadan kalktığında, insanlara düşen fail yurttaşlar olarak eyleyen olmaktan çok seyreden olmak olduğunda dahi, bir seyirci olmak eylemin faili olmaktan farklı yeni bir siyasallaşma imkânı ortaya çıkartabilir. Bu iddia siyaseti anlamak demenin aslında tam da olan biteni yargılama eylemi olduğunu söyleyen Hannah Arendt’in metinlerine başvurmamızı gerektirmektedir. Vita Contemplativa ve Vita Activa arasındaki ayrıma son çalışmalarında (Arendt, 2018) geri dönen Arendt açısından bakıldığında, neoliberalizmin öznesi, Kant’tan aldığı ilhamla Vita Activa ve Vita Contemplativa kavramlarının ilişkisi bakımından, yurttaş olarak belirli bir siyasal potansiyeli hala taşımaktadır.
Özet 2 / Abstract 2
:
The political milieu we are in is called a neoliberal order which has a peculiar rationality and a distinctive logic of governing. Neoliberalism has a specific manner which regulates all aspects of the existence in an economical way. It is claimed that this manner dissolves the basic features of democracy, especially its political sense (Brown, 2018). In other words, demos, people’s claim to be political subjects, is cancelled in this new order. Historically, the first texts of political philosophy defined people as Homo Politicus who were predestined to live in the polis and had no other possibility to exist out of the polis (Plato, Aristotle). When the modern period came forth, people were provided political rights and publicity as citizens in the scope of the theory of popular sovereignty ensured by the social contract theories (Locke, Rousseau). Today, it is argued that the subject of the neoliberal era is Homo Oeconomicus (Brown, 2018). In this kind of governmentality (Foucault, 2015), all the needs and desires of human beings turn out to be profitable ventures, and people are actually designed in accordance with the economic criteria. This design cannot mean a monetization. We think and act like market actors by any measure, for example education, health, well-being, and family life, and it is a result of the subjectivity created by neoliberalism. The neoliberal rationality distributes the market model to all the fields of human needs and planifies people as homo-oeconomicus in the forms of market actors (Brown, 2018). Some theoreticians emphasize the fact that even the bio-politics of Foucault gave way to a more advanced version of psycho-politics and where the psychologic techniques (Stiegler, 2012) capture the souls of humans and defines them as psychopolitical beings (Han, 2019). There is a common idea underlying all these definitions. Noliberalism as the most current dominant regime replaces the meanings and values of democracy with market values (Brown, 2018). As a result, everyone sees himself/herself as a corporation, and accepts himself/herself as “a worker who exploits the labor of himself/herself” and sees himself as both as “a master and a slave”. The old-fashioned class struggle is now the “people’s own struggle with their inner selves” (Han, 2019). Neoliberal psychopolitics exploits everyone, capturing their “souls” in their own singularity. The subject of the neoliberal regime “is a devastated one who is under the pressure of performing more and more under the command of optimizing himself/herself”, “is exposed to a perpetual psychopolitical orientation” and is only “a selfhood entrepreneur who exploits himself/herself” (Han, 2019). This study aims to claim in this framework that there is a possibility of being political while the only option is being a spectator and not an actor. This claim makes it necessary to apply to the texts of Arendt who thinks that understanding is a judgment of what is going on. Arendt discusses again the differentiation between Vita Contemplativa and Vita Activa (Arendt, 2018), and it is argued that the subjects of neoliberalism have political potential as citizens thanks to the relationship between Vita Contemplativa and Vita Activa.
Extended Summary
:
This study tries to define the condition of citizenship in the current political milieu in three sections. In this first section, the nature of neoliberalism is defined. The new political order is called a neoliberal order which has a peculiar rationality and a distinctive logic of governing. Neoliberalism has a specific manner which regulates all aspects of existence in an economical way. It is claimed that this manner dissolves the basic features of democracy, especially its political sense (Brown, 2018). In other words, demos, people’s claim to be political subjects, is cancelled in this new order. Historically, the first texts of political philosophy defined people as Homo Politicus who were predestined to live in the polis and had no other possibility to exist out of the polis (Plato, Aristotle). When the modern period came forth, people were provided political rights and publicity as citizens in the scope of the theory of popular sovereignty ensured by the social contract theories (Locke, Rousseau). In the second section, it is argued that the distinction between Homo Politicus and Homo Oeconomicus is a peculiar form of discussing the condition of people. Today, it is argued that the subject of the neoliberal era is Homo Oeconomicus (Brown, 2018). In this kind of governmentality (Foucault, 2015), all the needs and desires of human beings turn out to be profitable ventures, and people are actually designed in accordance with the economic criteria. This design cannot mean a monetization. We think and act like market actors by any measure, for example education, health, well-being, family life, and it is a result of the subjectivity created by neoliberalism. The neoliberal rationality distributes the market model to all the fields of human needs and planifies people as homo-oeconomicus in the forms of market actors (Brown, 2018). Some theoreticians emphasize the fact that even the bio-politics of Foucault gave way to a more advanced version of psycho-politics and where the psychologic techniques (Stiegler, 2012) capture the souls of humans and define them as psychopolitical beings (Han, 2019). There is a common idea underlying all these definitions. Neoliberalism as the most current dominant regime replaces the meanings and values of democracy with market values (Brown, 2018). As a result, everyone sees himself/herself as a corporation and accepts himself/herself as “a worker who exploits the labor of himself/herself” and sees himself as both as “a master and a slave”. The old-fashioned class struggle is now the “people’s own struggle with their inner selves” (Han, 2019). Neoliberal psychopolitics exploits everyone, capturing their “souls” in their own singularity. A subject of a neoliberal regime “is a devastated one who is under the pressure of performing more and more under the command of optimizing himself/herself”, “is exposed to a perpetual psychopolitical orientation” and is only “a selfhood entrepreneur who exploits himself/herself” (Han, 2019). In the third section, Arendt’s distinction between Vita Contemplativa and Vita Activa is considered to give an account of the condition of citizenship in a neoliberal regime. The main argument here is to show that there is a possibility of being a political being under the condition of being a spectator. The neoliberal regime cancels all the possibility of publicity and obliges people to be solitary in their own lives and struggles. However, when the texts of Arendt, who thinks that understanding is a judgment of what is going on, are taken into consideration, we can find a way to interpret the situation differently. Arendt discusses the differentiation between Vita Contemplativa and Vita Activa (Arendt, 2018) in the beginning of her first writings, especially in the Human Condition, and seems to praise Vita Activa over Vita Contemplativa. In other words, she seems to give more credit to the actor than to the spectator. However later in her writings, especially in The Life of the Mind and Lectures on Kant’s Critical Philosophy, she seems to change her thoughts about this distinction and defining one over the other. When we look at the texts of the commentators on this distinction (Beiner, Yar, Degryse) we see that they are intended to think this differentiation differently. Beiner thinks that Arendt has two distinct and incompatible definitions of judgment, one is the judgment of an actor and the other is the judgment of the spectator. Yar thinks that these two judgments are like Janus’ face, looking in exactly opposite directions. Degryse thinks that there is only one theory of judgment, and she seems to reduce Arendt’s theory of judgment into one. If we think on Arendt’s theory in accordance with Kant’s philosophy, we will see that Arendt’s two theories of judgment are exactly formed vis-à-vis Kant’s two theories of judgment, namely, determinative judgment (in the first and the second critique) and reflective judgment (the third critique). What this means is that when Arendt talks about the judgment of the spectator, she actually does not exclude the judgment of an actor. Kant thinks that these two judgments have to condition each other. One has to presume the other. So it is argued that the subjects of neoliberalism have political potential as citizens, even though what is left for them is only being spectators of the milieu they are in thanks to the relationship between Vita Contemplativa and Vita Activa.
Pdf
:
Neoliberalizm, Kamusallık, Yurttaşlık Tam Metin / Full Text
No: 16 - 12/2019 - Tüm Makaleler
Makale Arama
Sayı
Anahtar Kelime, Yazar(lar)
Künye
Sahibi / Owner
Ertuğrul Rufayi TURAN
Editör ve Sorumlu Yazı İşleri Müdürü / Editor
Ertuğrul Rufayi TURAN
Editör Yardımcıları / Assistant Editors
Emrah AKDENİZ
Ömer Faik ANLI
Yayın Kurulu / Editorial Board
Ahmet İNAM
(Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi)
Erdal CENGİZ
(Ankara Üniversitesi)
Kurtuluş DİNÇER
(Hacettepe Üniversitesi)
Ertuğrul Rufayi TURAN
(Ankara Üniversitesi)
Sedat YAZICI
(Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi)
Emrah Akdeniz
(Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi)
Senem KURTAR
(Ankara Üniversitesi)
Seyit COŞKUN
(Ankara Üniversitesi)
Ömer Faik ANLI
(Ankara Üniversitesi)
Danışma Kurulu / Board of Consultants
A.Kadir ÇÜÇEN
(Uludağ Üniversitesi)
Ayhan SOL
(Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi)
Barış PARKAN
(Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi)
Besim DELLALOĞLU
(Sakarya Üniversitesi)
Cemal GÜZEL
(Hacettepe Üniversitesi)
Çetin TÜRKYILMAZ
(Hacettepe Üniversitesi)
Elif ÇIRAKMAN
(Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi)
Erdinç SAYAN
(Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi)
Güçlü ATEŞOĞLU
(Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi)
Gülay ÖZDEMİR AKGÜNDÜZ
(Bingöl Üniversitesi)
Güzin YAMANER
(Ankara Üniversitesi)
Halil TURAN
(Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi)
Harun TEPE
(Hacettepe Üniversitesi)
Hüseyin Gazi TOPDEMİR
(Muğla Üniversitesi)
Kubilay AYSEVENER
(Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi)
M.Cihan CAMCI
(Akdeniz Üniversitesi)
Melih BAŞARAN
(Galatasaray Üniversitesi)
Nazile KALAYCI
(Hacettepe Üniversitesi)
Nilgün TOKER KILINÇ
(Ege Üniversitesi)
Remzi DEMİR
(Ankara Üniversitesi)
R. Levent AYSEVER
(Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi)
Serpil SANCAR
(Ankara Üniversitesi)
Yasin CEYLAN
(Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi)
Zeynep DİREK
(Koç Üniversitesi)
M. Murat YÜCEŞAHİN
(Ankara Üniversitesi)
Vefa Saygın ÖĞÜTLE
(Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi)
Sekreterya / Secretariat
Zeynep İrem ÖZATAY
Yazışma Adresi / Mailing Address
Ankara Üniversitesi,
Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi, Felsefe Bölümü, Ankara

Posseible Düşünme Dergisi hakemli bir dergidir. Yılda iki sayı olmak üzere elektronik ortamda yayınlanır. Posseible Düşünme Dergisi 2016 yılından itibaren The Philosopher's Index tarafından dizinlenmektedir.
ISSN: 2147-1622
editor@posseible.com
www.posseible.com
Tel: 0 312 310 3280 / 1232 – 1233
Posseible Düşünme Dergisi - editor@posseible.com
İşbu sitenin tüm hakları saklıdır. Site içerisindeki dökümanlar izinsiz ve kaynak gösterilmeden kullanılamaz. © 2012
Web Tasarım