İnsan-Hayvan İktidar İlişkisinin Söyleme Yansıması: Bir Agrosanayi Örneği

İnsan-hayvan arasındaki iktidar ilişkileri, uzunca bir süre akademik literatürde kendine yer bulamamıştır. Hayvanlar, insanlık tarihinin her aşamasında insanın hem fiziksel hem de toplumsal hayatının önemli bir parçası olmuşlardır. Son zamanlarda, eleştirel hayvan çalışmaları olarak anılan disiplinlerarası nitelikteki alan, insanhayvan etkileşiminin pek çok alanda ne kadar temel olduğunu hatırlatmakta ve sadece insanın özne olarak yüceltildiği yaklaşımları eleştirmektedir. Böylesi bir yaklaşımdan beslenen bu çalışma hayvanın aşağı statüsünün insan-merkezci, türcü bir ideolojiden kaynaklandığını savunmaktadır. Anaakım söylem, bu ideolojiyi hem yaratmakta hem de sürdürmektedir. Hayvanın aşağı statüsü, insanın doğa ve hayvanlar ile kurduğu uyumlu ilişkinin neolitik devrim ve evcilleştirme sonrasında bozulmasıyla başlayan bir sürecin sonucudur. İnsanın hiyerarşik üstünlüğü, insan ve hayvan arasındaki farklara odaklanan bir bakış açısıyla inşa edilmekte ve giderek normalleşen bu aşağı statü yansımasını dilde bulmaktadır. Hayvanların günümüzdeki aşağı statüsü etrafında kurulan hegemonya öylesine başarılıdır ki insanhayvan arasındaki iktidar ilişkileri sorgulanmaz, normal ve doğal kabul edilir. Bu çalışmada, dilde gömülü olan iktidar ilişkilerini ortaya çıkarmaya, gizli olanı görünür hale getirip toplumsal eşitsizliklerle mücadele etmeye katkı sağlayan eleştirel söylem çözümlemesi yöntemi tercih edilmiştir. Modern dünyada insanın hayvanla girdiği asimetrik ilişkinin en geniş kapsamlı ve en kanlı görüntüsü gıda sektöründe karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Bu bağlamda, incelenek metin, T.C. Gıda, Tarım ve Hayvancılık Bakanlığı'nın internet sayfasından alınan "Yumurta Tavukçuluğu" ve "Etlik Piliç Yetiştiriciliği" olarak seçilmiş ve bu metinlere Eleştirel Söylem Çözümlemesi uygulanmıştır. Üretim söylemi, meşruiyet sağlama, düzdeğişmece, örtmece ve sessizlik başlıkları altında incelenen metnin eleştirel söylem çözümlemesi kavramlarıyla bağlantıları kurulmuştur. Metin çözümlemesi neticesinde, tavukların söylem yoluyla birer cansız nesneye dönüştürüldükleri, bireyselliklerinin, öznelliklerinin ellerinden alındığı, insanlar tarafından oluşturulan yapay kategoriler etrafında bütün hayatlarının- ve ölümlerinin- önceden belirlendiği, arka plandaki zalim uygulamaların kamufle edildiği ortaya konulmuştur. Söyleme dair bu bulgular hayvanı insandan aşağı tutan insan-merkezci ve türcü bir yaklaşımla tutarlılık göstermektedir.

Discursive Manifestations of Human-Animal Power Relationships: The Case of Agro-Industry

Power relations between humans and animals have long been neglected in the academic literature. At every stage of human history, animals have always been an important part of human’s physical and social life. Recently, the interdisciplinary field of critical animal studies has reminded how fundamental human-animal interaction is in many areas, criticizing approaches that exalt humans as the only subjects. This paper, getting insights from such an approach, argues that the animal’s lower status is rooted in an anthropocentric, speciesist ideology. The mainstream discourse is creating and maintaining this ideology.The lower status of the animal is the result of a process that begins with the neolithic revolution and domestication of the animals which brings forth the deterioration of the harmonious relationship that human has with nature and animals. The hierarchical superiority of human is being constructed with the differences between human and animal in the spotlight, and this lower status which gets normalized, finds its reflection on the language. The hegemony established around the lower status of animals is so successful that the relation of power between human and animal tends to be considered unquestionable, normal and natural. In this study, critical discourse analysis is preferred as the method, as it contributes to revealing the power relations concealed in the language; making the hidden ones visible, and fighting against social inequalities.In the modern world, the most comprehensive and bloodiest asymmetrical relationship that humans and animals have is the food sector. In this context, the texts titled “Yumurta Tavukçuluğu” (Layer Poultry Farming) and “Etlik Piliç Yetiştiriciliği” (Broiler Chicken Farming) are taken from the website of the Turkish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock, and then they are analyzed via the methods of critical discourse analysis. Sub-headings of this analysis are “the discourse of production, legitimization, metonymy, euphemism, and silence”. These subheadings are clarified via the terminology of critical discourse analysis. The analysis reveals that through discourse the chickens are turned into inanimate objects, their individualities and subjectivities are stripped off, their lives and deaths are predetermined around the artificial categories that are created by the hands of humans, and the cruel practices of the industry are camouflaged. These findings suggest that this discourse is consistent with the anthropocentric and speciesist approach that deems the animal lower than the human

PDF

___

Adams, C. (1990). The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. New York: Continuum.
Arluke, A. (2002). A Sociology of Sociological Animal Studies. Society and Animals, 10(4), 369-374.
Baxter, J. (2010). Discourse-Analytic Approaches to Text and Talk. L. Litosseliti (Ed.), Research Methods in Linguistics (ss. 117–137). London: Continuum.
Bekoff, M. (2002). Awareness: Animal reflections. Nature, 419(6904), 255–255. https://doi.org/10.1038/419255a Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Penguin.
Best, S. (2009). The Rise of Critical Animal Studies: Putting Theory into Action and Animal Liberation into Higher Education, http://www.stateofnature.org/theRiseOfCriticalAnimal.html
Burr, V. (1995). An Introduction to Social Constructionism. London & New York: Routledge.
Calvo, E. (2008). “Most Farmers Prefer Blondes”- Dynamics of Anthroparchy in Animals Becoming Meat. The Journal of Critical Animal Studies, 6, (1), 32-45.
Capps, A. (2013). Debeaking Video Shows Standard Practice on Free Range Egg Farms, http://freefromharm.org/ animal-cruelty-investigation/debeaking-video-shows-standard-practice-on-free-range-egg-farms/
Cavalieri, P., & Singer, P. (Ed.). (1994). The Great Ape Project: Equality Beyond Humanity (St Martin’s Gri edition). New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.
Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh University Press.
Coe, Richard M. (1998). Public Doublespeak, Critical Reading, and Verbal Action. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42:192-195.
Cohen, S. (2001). States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering. Cambridge, UK: Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Darwin, C. (1981). The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. Princeton & New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Dawkins, M. S. (1998). Through Our Eyes Only?: The Search for Animal Consciousness. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Dunayer, J. (1995). Sexist Words, Speciesist Roots. C. J. Adams ve J. Donnovan (Ed.), Animals and Women. London: Duke University.
Ergin Zengin, S. (2017). Özneden Nesneye: Söylem Analizi Üzerinden Hayvanın Değişen Statüsü Hakkında Bir İnceleme. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi/ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Etlik Piliç Yetiştiriciliği (t.y.) T.C. Gıda, Tarım ve Hayvancılık Bakanlığı, http://www.tarim.gov.tr/HAYGEM/ Belgeler/Hayvancılık/Kanatlı%20Yetiştiriciliği/Etlik%20Piliç%20Yetistiriciligi.pdf adresinden erişildi.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2004). Critical Discourse Analysis in Researching Language in the New Capitalism: Overdetermination, Transdisciplinary and Textual Analysis. C. Harrison ve L. Young (Ed.), Systemic Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis, (ss.103-122). London: Continuum.
Francione, G. (2008). Hayvan Haklarına Giriş: Çocuğunuz mu Köpeğiniz mi? İstanbul: İletişim Yayıncılık.
Friedrich, B. (2013). The Cruelest of All Factory Farm Products: Eggs from Caged Hens, http://www. huffingtonpost.com/bruce-friedrich/eggs-from-caged-hens_b_2458525.html
Glenn, C. B. (2004). Constructing Consumables and Consent: A Critical Analysis of Factory Farm Industry Discourse. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 28(1), 63-81.
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books.
Griffin, D. R. (1984). Animal Thinking: Ethologists Are Once Again Investigating the Possibility That Animals Have Conscious Awareness. American Scientist, 72(5), 456-464.
Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J., & Roberts, B. (1978). Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order (1978 basımı). London: Palgrave.
Havasız Kalan 22 Bin Tavuk Telef Oldu. (2012, Ocak 3). Erişim Adresi: http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/ havasiz_kalan_22_bin_tavuk_telef_oldu-1074472
Hurn, S. (2012). Anthropology, Culture and Society: Humans and Other Animals: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Human-Animal Interactions. London: Pluto Press.
Jacobs, G & Stibbe, A. (2006). Guest Editors’ Introduction: Animals and Language. Society & Animals, 14(1).
Janks, H. (1997). Critical Discourse Analysis as a Research Tool. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 18 (3), ss. 329 – 342.
Joy, M. (2011). Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism. Berkeley, CA; Enfield: Conari Press.
Ingold, T. (1994). Introduction. T. Ingold (Ed.), What is an Animal? London & New York: Routledge Kemmerer, L. A. (2006). Verbal Activism: “Anymal”. Society & Animals, 14(1), 9-14.
Kirksey S.E. & S. Helmreich (2010). The Emergence of Multispecies Ethnography. Cultural Anthropology, 25 (4), 545–576.
Kress, G. ve Hodge, R. (1993). Language as Ideology (2. baskı). London: Routledge.
Kruse, C. R. (2002). Social Animals: Animal Studies and Sociology. Society & Animals, 10(4).
Lewis, J. (2003). Design Issues. J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Ed.), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. London, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Lutz, W. (1987). Language, Appearance, and Reality: Doublespeak in 1984. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 54:383-391
Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2012). How to Do Critical Discourse Analysis: A Multimodal Introduction. London; Thousand Oaks; New Delhi: Sage.
Marcus, E. (2001). Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating. Ithaca, N.Y: McBooks Press.
Mason, J. (2005). An Unnatural Order: Why we are Destroying the Planet and One Another. Lantern Books.
Mayr, A. (2008). Language and Power: An Introduction to Institutional Discourse. London; New York: Continuum.
McCance, D. (2013). Critical Animal Studies: An Introduction. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Mitchell, L. (2006). Animals and the Discourse of Farming in Southern Africa. Society & Animals, 14(1), 39–59.
Morgan, K. ve Cole, M. (2011). The Discursive Representation of Nonhuman Animals in a Culture of Denial. B.
Carter ve N. Charles (Ed.) Human and Other Animals: Critical Perspectives, (ss. 112-132). London, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mullin, M. (2002). Animals and Anthropology. Society and Animals, 10(4), 387–394.
Muş’ta 40 bin Tavuk Telef Oldu. (2016, Nisan 16). Erişim Adresi http://webtv.hurriyet.com.tr/ embed/?vid=130263&resizable=1&autostart=true&v_utm_source=haber_detay&pub_ name=hurriyet&pub_kategori=hr_gundem&pub_contentid=40089478
Nibert, D. (2002). Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation (Critical Media Studies: Institutions, Politics, and Culture). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Kindle Edition.
Noske, B. (1997). Beyond Boundaries: Humans and Animals. New York: Black Rose Books.
Oppermann, S. (2012). Ekoeleştiri: Çevre ve Edebiyat Çalışmalarının Dünü ve Bugünü. Oppermann, S. (Ed.), Ekoeleştiri: Çevre ve Edebiyat (ss. 9-57). Ankara: Phoenix.
Purvis, T., & Hunt, A. (1993). Discourse, Ideology, Discourse, Ideology, Discourse, Ideology... British Journal of Sociology, 473–499.
Sayers, D. O. (2014). The Most Wretched of Beings in the Cage of Capitalism. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 18(3), 529-554, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10761-014-0268-z Singer, P. (2005). Hayvan Özgürleşmesi, (H. Doğan, Çev.). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
Singer, P. (2013). Hayvanlar Acıyı Hisseder mi? K. Savaş (Ed.), Hayvan Hakları ve Veganizm (ss. 89-93). İstanbul: Kült Neşriyat.
Smart, A. (2014). Critical Perspectives on Multispecies Ethnography. Critique of Anthropology, 34(1), 3–7.
Smil, V. (2013). Should We Eat Meat? Evolution and Consequences of Modern Carnivory. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Stewart, K., & Cole, M. (2009). The Conceptual Separation of Food and Animals in Childhood. Food, Culture and Society: An International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 12(4), 457–476.
Stibbe, A. (2001). Language, Power and the Social Construction of Animals. Society & Animals, 9(2), 145-161.
Stibbe, A. (2005). Counter-discourses and the Relationship between Humans and Other Animals. Anthrozoös, 18(1), 3-17.
Stibbe, A. (2006). Deep Ecology and Language: The Curtailed Journey of the Atlantic Salmon. Society & Animals, 14(1), 61-77.
Stibbe, A. (2012b). Today We Live without Them: The Erasure of Animals and Plants in the Language of Ecosystem Management. ECOS, 33(1), 47-53.
Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Thiesmeyer, L. (2003). Discourse and Silencing: Representation and the language of displacement. John Benjamins Publishing.
Torres, B. (2007). Making A Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights. Oakland: AK Press.
Turner, J. (1999). Brittle Bones: Osteoporosis and the Battery Cage. Compassion in World Farming. Hampshire, UK.
van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249-283.
van Dijk, T. A. (2000). Ideology and Discourse: A Multidisciplinary Introduction.
van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Multidisciplinary CDA: A Please for Diversity, R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.
van Leeuwen, T. (1996). The Representation of Social Actors. Carmen Rosa Caldas-Coulthard & Malcolm Coulthard (Ed.), Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis (ss. 32-70). London: Routledge.
van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Legitimation in Discourse and Communication. Discourse & Communication, 1(1), 91–112.
van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Weitzenfeld, A., Joy, M. (2014). An Overview of Anthropocentrism, Humanism, and Speciecism in Critical Animal Theory. A. J. Nocella II, J. Sorenson, K. Socha, A. Matsuoka (Ed.), Defining Critical Animal Studies: An Intersectional Social Justice Approach for Liberation (Draft). New York: Peter Lang Inc., International Academic Publishers.
Wicks, D. (2011). Silence and Denial in Everyday Life—The Case of Animal Suffering. Animals, 1(4), 186–199.
Widdowson, H. G. (2007). Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Winders, B. ve Nibert, D. (2004). Consuming the Surplus: Expanding “Meat” Consumption and Animal Oppression. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 24(9), 76-96.
Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is About – a Summary of Its History, Important Concepts and Its Developments. R.
Wodak & M. Meyer (Ed.). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London; Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Yumurta Tavukçuluğu (t. y.) T.C. Gıda, Tarım ve Hayvancılık Bakanlığı. http://www.tarim.gov.tr/HAYGEM/ Belgeler/Hayvancılık/Kanatlı%20Yetiştiriciliği/YumurtaTavukculugu.pdf adresinden erişildi.