Sarmaşık: Foucaultcu bir analiz
Yükleniyor...
Tarih
2025
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Otorite, isyan ve itaat kavramlarını normatif ögelerin belirlendiği totaliter bir olgu olan moralite, sınırlandırıcı bir iktidarın karşısında konumlanan biyo-iktidar ve tutuklunun izlenme altındaki otokontrolünü hedefleyen panoptikon aracılığıyla yeniden tanımlamaya olanak sağlayan düşünceleriyle 20. Yüzyıl’ın önde gelen düşünürlerinden olan Fransız filozof Michel Foucault’nun, iktidar pratiklerini incelerken kullandığı belirli kavramların etkisiyle şekillenecek olan bu çalışma, Tolga Karaçelik’in Sarmaşık (2015) filmi üzerinden bu kavramları açıklamayı ve görünür kılmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bir anlamda itaat ve otorite ikileminin yarattığı bir kırılmanın, yani tahrip edilmiş bir iktidar mekanizmasının çözülüşünü anlatan film Foucault’cu bir paradigmayla incelendiğinde, yukarda bahsettiğimiz kavramların yanında özneleri yaratma biçimiyle de Foucault’un fikirleriyle koşut bir düzlemde durmaktadır. Sarmaşık, otorite-itaat ilişkisinin sürekliliğinde, itaat eden bireyin ve itaat edilen otoritenin tutumunu, toplumun birey üzerindeki üstün etkisine karşıt olarak; bir öznenin, geminin kaptanı olan karakterin geminin mürettebatı olan küçük topluma benimsetmeye çalıştığı kurallar bütünü üzerinden sorunsallaştırır. Bu sorunsal, Foucault’nun deyişiyle sınırlandırıcı bir iktidar bakışının artık değiştiği, iktidar kavramının daha kapsayıcı ve pozitif bir hale geldiği bir yaklaşımla içerik analizi çerçevesinde incelenmiş ve Foucaultcu kavramlar irdelenmiştir.
Foucault defines ethics as one of the three fundamental domains of morality. Morality, as well as ethics, consists of both a moral law and the concrete actions of moral agents. The former consists of more or less clearly formulated values and rules proposed by “rule-making institutions” (e.g. family, church, work, etc.) in which individuals participate. Second, it gives meaning to the actions of historically real persons to the extent that these actions conform or do not conform, comply or resist, respect or do not respect the values and rules imposed on them by rule-making institutions Foucault argues that in addition to moral rules and the actual behavior of individuals, morality also consists of a third domain, ethics. He generally and succinctly defines it as the relation of the subject to itself, but a more technical definition of ethics is the behavior required of an individual to make his or her own actions consistent with a moral code and standards of moral approval. Morality is a totalitarian phenomenon that the individual accepts and internalizes without thinking or questioning, and that is the basis of the individual's behavioral system. The impact of the morality of society on an individual is much greater than the impact of the individual on the morality of the society, which consists of more general norms and is more inclusive than the morality of the individual. Michel Foucault emphasizes the importance of differences in morality formed by personal background. These differences manifest as the problematic of the (in)unification of individuals under a single morality, a formation that evolves into a destroyed form of what Foucault characterizes as biopower. According to Foucault, the self is discursively produced over time by being subjected to the regulatory power relations of the discourses in which it is situated. Discourse communicates and produces power; it strengthens it but also weakens and exposes it, makes it fragile and makes it possible to thwart it. Therefore, the subject (the person, the self, the identity of the person) is the product of history and power. Foucault's concept of biopower is a form of power targeting the population, defining the management and regulation of human life at the level of the population and the individual body. According to Foucault, biopower intervenes in life in two main ways: The first form, which approaches the human body as a machine, is a “disciplinary” power. The aim of this form, which Foucault calls the 'anatomo-politics of the body', is to discipline the human body, to develop its abilities, to make it more efficient and docile and to integrate it into control systems. With bio-power, which he positions in opposition to a legal-discursive power, Foucault argues that a restrictive view of power has now changed and the concept of power has become more inclusive and positive. Foucault evaluates the state of biopower, in which the effect of a dominant and so-called power on social life has changed, the situations that tie the hands of the individual are gradually eliminated and productive individuals emerge, under two subheadings: The anatomo-politics of the body and the bio-politics of the population. The anatomo-political attitude in which the human body is rendered productive and functional, disciplined and made functional works intertwined and together with the bio-political attitude in which the body's ability to reproduce is controlled, in a way turning into a kind of controlled population planning. Ivy questions the concept of power through the set of rules that a subject, the character Beybaba, the captain of the ship, tries to impose on the small society, the crew of the ship, in opposition to the superior influence of society on the individual. In the film, the process of establishing and maintaining power, which is handled with an approach that does not deprive the individual of freedom and allows them a private living space and freedom, although not completely, turns into a phenomenon of domination when the ship is left in the middle of the sea in an uncertain situation. Ivy concludes the rupture in the relationship between authority and obedience caused by a failed anatomo-political stance that Beybaba has implemented and enforced while trying to create a sphere of power as a “rebellion against authority”. Although this rebellion stands out as a battle of “self” and “truth” of the characters whose mental health deteriorates against the power (Beybaba) that insists on exercising domination, this rebellion of the crew is not the result of the domination exercised by Beybaba, but the result of the self-control that Beybaba is unable to exercise. The fact that cinema is an art to which many sociological and philosophical theories and approaches add meaning is the most important factor that constitutes this study. This article, which is a summary of a part of Foucault's literature and which we try to show through the film Ivy, aims to bring an alternative perspective to the concepts identified with Foucault such as authority, power, rebellion, surveillance through the art of cinema through the film Ivy.
Foucault defines ethics as one of the three fundamental domains of morality. Morality, as well as ethics, consists of both a moral law and the concrete actions of moral agents. The former consists of more or less clearly formulated values and rules proposed by “rule-making institutions” (e.g. family, church, work, etc.) in which individuals participate. Second, it gives meaning to the actions of historically real persons to the extent that these actions conform or do not conform, comply or resist, respect or do not respect the values and rules imposed on them by rule-making institutions Foucault argues that in addition to moral rules and the actual behavior of individuals, morality also consists of a third domain, ethics. He generally and succinctly defines it as the relation of the subject to itself, but a more technical definition of ethics is the behavior required of an individual to make his or her own actions consistent with a moral code and standards of moral approval. Morality is a totalitarian phenomenon that the individual accepts and internalizes without thinking or questioning, and that is the basis of the individual's behavioral system. The impact of the morality of society on an individual is much greater than the impact of the individual on the morality of the society, which consists of more general norms and is more inclusive than the morality of the individual. Michel Foucault emphasizes the importance of differences in morality formed by personal background. These differences manifest as the problematic of the (in)unification of individuals under a single morality, a formation that evolves into a destroyed form of what Foucault characterizes as biopower. According to Foucault, the self is discursively produced over time by being subjected to the regulatory power relations of the discourses in which it is situated. Discourse communicates and produces power; it strengthens it but also weakens and exposes it, makes it fragile and makes it possible to thwart it. Therefore, the subject (the person, the self, the identity of the person) is the product of history and power. Foucault's concept of biopower is a form of power targeting the population, defining the management and regulation of human life at the level of the population and the individual body. According to Foucault, biopower intervenes in life in two main ways: The first form, which approaches the human body as a machine, is a “disciplinary” power. The aim of this form, which Foucault calls the 'anatomo-politics of the body', is to discipline the human body, to develop its abilities, to make it more efficient and docile and to integrate it into control systems. With bio-power, which he positions in opposition to a legal-discursive power, Foucault argues that a restrictive view of power has now changed and the concept of power has become more inclusive and positive. Foucault evaluates the state of biopower, in which the effect of a dominant and so-called power on social life has changed, the situations that tie the hands of the individual are gradually eliminated and productive individuals emerge, under two subheadings: The anatomo-politics of the body and the bio-politics of the population. The anatomo-political attitude in which the human body is rendered productive and functional, disciplined and made functional works intertwined and together with the bio-political attitude in which the body's ability to reproduce is controlled, in a way turning into a kind of controlled population planning. Ivy questions the concept of power through the set of rules that a subject, the character Beybaba, the captain of the ship, tries to impose on the small society, the crew of the ship, in opposition to the superior influence of society on the individual. In the film, the process of establishing and maintaining power, which is handled with an approach that does not deprive the individual of freedom and allows them a private living space and freedom, although not completely, turns into a phenomenon of domination when the ship is left in the middle of the sea in an uncertain situation. Ivy concludes the rupture in the relationship between authority and obedience caused by a failed anatomo-political stance that Beybaba has implemented and enforced while trying to create a sphere of power as a “rebellion against authority”. Although this rebellion stands out as a battle of “self” and “truth” of the characters whose mental health deteriorates against the power (Beybaba) that insists on exercising domination, this rebellion of the crew is not the result of the domination exercised by Beybaba, but the result of the self-control that Beybaba is unable to exercise. The fact that cinema is an art to which many sociological and philosophical theories and approaches add meaning is the most important factor that constitutes this study. This article, which is a summary of a part of Foucault's literature and which we try to show through the film Ivy, aims to bring an alternative perspective to the concepts identified with Foucault such as authority, power, rebellion, surveillance through the art of cinema through the film Ivy.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Michel Foucault, Tolga Karaçelik, Sarmaşık, Moralite, İktidar, Ivy, Morality, Power
Kaynak
Intermedia International E-journal
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
12
Sayı
22
Künye
Körük, T. (2025). Sarmaşık: Foucaultcu Bir Analiz. Intermedia International E-Journal, 12(22), 215-236.
