Meta Fetişizmi: Latourcu Bir Okuma Denemesi

Bu makale Marx'ın meta fetişizmi analizinin Latourcu bir okumasını önermektedir. Metin, kendi eserleri üzerinden Latour'un metodolojik pozisyonunu tanımlamak üzere dört nitelik belirlemektedir: bağlılık olarak gerçeklik; insan olan ile insan olmayanın ayrılmazlığı; aktantlara odaklanma; (karşı-) program olarak gerçeklik. Metinde, Latour'un Pandora'nın Umudu (Pandora's Hope) eserinde Marx'ın da dâhil olduğu ve put kırıcılar olarak adlandırdığı filozoflara ve tarihsel kişiliklere yönelttiği eleştiriler soru formunda Marx'a yöneltilmektedir: (1) Meta fetişin karşılık geldiği şey bir hiçlikten mi ibarettir? Marx meta fetişi, emeğimizi yanlış bir şekilde yansıttığımız boş bir ekran olarak mı değerlendirir? (2) Emek gücü bütün yanılsamaları kırabilecek bir çekiç midir? (3) Marx fetişe safça inanan insanların olduğuna safça inanan bir put kırıcı mıdır? (4) Meta fetiş yanlış bir hedef midir? Makale Marx'a yöneltilen bu soruları Latour'un metodolojik pozisyonunu tanımlamak için belirlenen dört nitelik üzerinden cevaplandırmaya çalışmaktadır. Bu analiz bir yandan meta fetişin Latourcu bir çözümlemesini yaparken, Marx'ın kendi meta fetişi analizinde hali hazırda var olan faktişist özellikleri açığa çıkarmayı hedeflemektedir

Commodity Fetishism: An Attempt at a Latourean Reading

This paper offers a Latourean reading of Marx’s analysis of commodity fetishism. From the works of Latour, this paper determines four characteristics of his methodological position: reality as attachment; the inseparability of humans and non-humans; the focus on actants; and the (anti)programmatic nature of reality. Following these characteristics, this analysis produces hypothetical, yet theoretically loaded answers to the questions of Latour as to whether, for Marx, the commodity fetish is nothing in itself; whether labour power is an absolute ‘hammer’; whether there are naïve believers in the fetish; and whether the commodity fetish is the wrong target. While producing a Latourean analysis of commodity fetishism, this paper simultaneously demonstrates that Marx’s position already carries factish-ist traces

PDF

___

Akrich M. & Latour B. (1997). “A Summary of a Convenient Vocabulary for the Semiotics of Human and Nonhuman Assemblies”. Eds. W. E. Bijker & J. Law, Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change (1997) 259-264. Cambridge & London.
Callon M. (1997). “Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis”. Eds. W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes & T. Pinc, The Social Construction of Technological Systems (1997) 83-103. Cambridge.
Danholt P. (2012). “Factish Relations: Affective Bodies in Diabetes Treatment”. Health 17/4 (2012) 1-16.
Debord G. (1996). Gösteri Toplumu ve Yorumlar. İstanbul 1996.
Dimoulis D. & Milios J. (2004). “Commodity Fetishism vs. Capital Fetishism: Marxist Interpretations vis-a-vis Marx’s Analyses in Capital”. Historical Materialism 12/3 (2004) 3-42.
Elder-Vass D. (2015). “Disassembling Actor-Network Theory”. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 45/1 (2015) 100-121.
Flatschart E. (2012). “The Commodity and its Other”. Culture and Organization 18/5 (2012) 397-414.
Holloway J. (2010). Change the World without Taking Power. London 2010.
Hornborg A. (2014). “Technology as Fetish: Marx, Latour, and the Cultural Foundations of Capitalism”. Theory, Culture & Society 31/4 (2014) 119-140.
Latour B. (1991). “Technology is Society Made Durable”. Ed. J. Law, A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology, & Domination (1991) 103-131. London & New York.
Latour B. (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge 1993.
Latour B. (1994). “Pragmatogonies: A Mythical Account of How Humans and Nonhumans Swap Properties”. American Behavioural Scientist 37/6 (1994) 791-808.
Latour B. (1997). “Where are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artefacts”. Eds. W. E. Bijker & J. Law, Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change (1997) 225-258. Cambridge.
Latour B. (1999a). “Factures/fractures: From the Concept of Network to the Concept of Attachment”. Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 36/Autumn (1999) 20-31.
Latour B. (1999b). Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge 1999.
Latour B. (2003). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge 2003.
Latour B. (2004). “Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern”. Critical Inquiry 33/Winter (2004) 225-248.
Latour B. (2007). Reassembling the Social. Oxford 2007.
Latour B. (2010). On the Modern Cult of the Factish Gods. Durham 2010.
Law J. (2007). “After ANT: Complexity, Naming and Topology”. Eds. J. Law & J. Hassard, Actor Network Theory and After (2007) 1-14. Malden, US.
Luke T. W. (2000). “Cyborg Enchantments: Commodity Fetishism and Human/Machine Interactions”. Strategies 13/1 (2000) 39-62.
Marx K. & Engels F. (1992). Alman İdeolojisi [Feurbach]. Ankara 1992.
Marx K. & Engels F. (2010). “Komünist Manifesto”. Komünist Manifesto ve Hakkında Yazılar, (2010) 19-51. İstanbul.
Marx K. (1978). Kapital. Birinci Cilt. Ankara 1978.
Marx K. (1992). “Feuerbach Üzerine Tezler”. Alman İdeolojisi [Feurbach] (1992) 20-22. Ankara 1992.
Marx K. (1993). 1844 Elyazmaları – Ekonomi, Politik ve Felsefe. Ankara 1993.
Özel H. (2008). “The Notion of Power and the ‘Metaphysics’ of Labour Values”. Review of Radical Political Economics 40/4 (2008) 445-61.
Schiermer B. (2011). “Quasi-Objects, Cult Objects and Fashion Objects”. Theory, Culture & Society 28/1 (2011) 81-102.
Silva S. (2013). “Reification and Fetishism: Processes of Transformation”. Theory, Culture & Society 30/1 (2013) 79-98.
Strum S. S. & Latour B. (1987). “Redefining the Social Link: From Baboons to Humans”. Social Science Information 26/4 (1987) 783-802.
White H. (2013). “Materiality, Form, and Context: Marx Contra Latour”. Victorian Studies 55/4 (2013) 667-682.