Bu makalede Macar yazar Imre Kertész'in düşünce dünyası, romanları ve holocaust bağlamında irdelenmiştir. Çalışmada yazarın bildungsroman türündeki üç ilk romanı; Kadersizlik, Fiyasko ve Doğmayacak Çocuk İçin Dua adlı romanları edebiyat sosyolojisi açısından ele alınmıştır. Romanların içeriği bakımından tematik bir çözümlemenin yapıldığı çalışmada bir yeniden okuma-anlama ve yorumlama çabası olarak nitelenen empati okuma yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Kertész'in Kadersizlik, Fiyasko ve Doğmayacak Çocuk İçin Dua adlı romanları, kurgu-deneyim ve öz yaşamöyküsü unsurlarından oluşmuş bir metin olma özelliği taşır. Felsefi-sosyolojik açıdan onu ilgilendiren temel soru, Yahudi soykırımının nasıl olduğundan ziyade niçin olduğudur. Auschwitz'i, "marjinal" bir sorun olmaktan çıkartarak "evrensel" bir sorun olarak tanımlama gayreti içerisinde olan yazar, romanlarında bu temel düşüncesini savunur. Kertész, her üç romanında okura gizil bir biçimde "Toplum acaba bireyi yok etme üzerine mi kendini inşa etmektedir?" sorusunu hatırlatma amacını güder. Modernlik ya da modernlik pratiği, ona göre beraberinde eşitsizlikler, bölmelenmişlikler ve toplumsal sefaletleri getirmiştir. Toplumsal var oluş ya da düzen, insan doğasına aykırı toplumsal ilişkileri doğurmaktadır. Kertész'in yazmaktaki temel gayesi, kimliğine ilişkin varoluş mücadelesidir. Kimliğin inşasında bireysel iradenin tayin edici gücüne öncelik veren Kertész, buna engel olucu her türlü diktatöryal düşüncenin ve mekanizmanın da karşısında tavır alır. Bilgi sosyolojisi açısından baktığımızda Kertész'in, romanlarında olgular ve kavramların toplumsal hayattaki çelişkili görünürlüğüne dikkat çektiğini belirtebiliriz. Ona göre yaşadıklarımız çoğu zaman bizi "biz" olmaktan yoksun bırakır. Yahudilik kimliğinin toplumsal yaralarına sıklıkla vurgu yapan Kertész, kavramların aldatıcı-oyalayıcı yönüne dikkat çeker. Yazarın, romanlarındaki düşünsel dokunuşlarından anlaşıldığı üzere holocaust, somut bir olgu olarak kavramsal düzeyde Yahudi soykırımını tam anlamıyla karşılayamamaktadır

In this article, Hungarian author Imre Kertész’s world of thought and his novels were analyzed within the context of holocaust. In this study, the author’s first three novels written in Bildungsroman genre, Fatelessness, Fiasco and Kaddish for an Unborn Child, were analyzed from the point of literary sociology. In this study in which a thematic analysis of contents of these novels was conducted, the empathy reading method was used qualified as an effort to reread-understand and interpret. Kertész’s novels, Fatelessness, Fiasco and Kaddish for an Unborn Child, have the characteristics of a text comprised of elements such as fiction-experience and self-biography. From philosophical-sociological perspective, the essential question to concern Kertész is why the Holocaust occurred rather than how. Attempting to define Auschwitz as “a universal” problem by removing its quality of being “a marginal” problem, the author defends this basic idea in his novels. Kertész, in all his three novels, pursues a goal of reminding his readers latently the question “May the society build itself on the fact of destroying the individual?”. Modernism or the practice of modernism, for the author, has brought in inequalities, segmentations and social miseries. Social existence or order brings forth social relationship against the human nature. The main purpose of Kertész in writing is his the struggle of existence regarding his identity. Giving priority to controlling power of personal will in the construction of identity, Kertész adopts a particular attitude against all types of dictatorial thought and mechanism preventing such construction. Considering from the point of sociology of knowledge, it is possible to note that Kertész draws attention to contradictory appearance of facts and concepts in social life in his novels. According to him, our experiences often deprive us of being “us”. Often emphasizing social wounds of Judaism identity, Kertész draws attention to the direction of deceptive-diverting aspect of concepts. As can be understood from author’s intellectual touches in his novels, the term holocaust, as a phenomenon, cannot literally correspond to the Jewish massacre on a conceptual level. Examples from world literature show a deep relationship between literature and war-holocaust throughout the human history. Novels by people who have experienced war and particular situations in a war (holocaust, mass migration, fires, etc.) and who have been a witness of these incidents can be considered as social documents informing about sociological and historical conditions of such a period. Hungarian Jewish author Imre Kertész’s novels can be considered in this context. In this article, Nobel Prize-winning author, Imre Kertész’s world of thought and his novels were analyzed within the context of holocaust. In this study, the author’s first three novels written in Bildungsroman genre, Fatelessness, Fiasco and Kaddish for an Unborn Child, were analyzed from the point of literary sociology. In this study in which a thematic analysis of contents of these novels was conducted, the empathy reading method was used qualified as an effort to rereadunderstand and interpret. Using this method, it has been objected to bring into view the philosophical-sociological meanings in novel. As for monitoring of empathy reading method, two methodological principles in sociological aspects were taken into account. In the first principle, during the phase of reading and interpretation for novels bearing a quality of trilogy, details reflecting the integrity in work-author interaction and passages among novels are taken into consideration. In the second principle, it has been objected to interpret basic elements (place, time, event and people), imaginative usages and metaphorical narrations in novels. Within the scope of this study, following questions were attempted to be answered: As someone personally experienced the holocaust, what is the place of Imre Kertész in holocaust literature? What are the characteristics of his novels in terms of holocaust literature? Can we consider Imre Kertész’s writing purpose as solely writing holocaust to place experienced pains, cruelty and their causes on humanity’s memory? What are sociological-historical sources for his writing purpose? What are the imaginative and metaphorical narrations and representation in novels on a sociological ground regarding Auschwitz being one of the deadliest camps in terms of holocaust and where the author also struggled for life? Acquiring an important place in the world of European literature especially after 1990s, it is possible to introduce Kertész as “an author who breathes through his pen to live a lived life ‘again, in his own way’.” For Kertész, writing is both an escape, resistance and a salvation. The only power that allows Kertesz to survive in the aftermath of holocaust is writing and the act of creating. In our opinion, it is unlikely to understand Kertész’s novels and determine their place in EuropeanHungarian literature without questioning their philosophicalsociological foundations. Kertész’s novels, including Fatelessness, Fiasco and Kaddish for an Unborn Child, bearing autobiographic traces but impossible to be included in autobiographical novel genre, have the characteristics of a text comprised of elements such as fiction-experience and selfbiography. Characters in these novel with consciousness of awareness of the age and conditions of society they live in, display resistance as a perpetrator against objective socialization conditions imposed by the system. Such resistance by characters and their efforts to make it meaningful through their lifestyles also symbolize author’s point of view. In this respect, author’s novels can be included in the genre that points to the intellectual maturity also called as Bildungsroman. Considering superficially, the main theme of author’s novels includes experiences in Auschwitz concentration camp, the holocaust and afterwards. Intellectual and emotional residues brought in by Nazi Germany-Hitler’s regime and the Communist regime in Hungary in Kertész’s life became catalysts that drove Kertész to write novels. Kertész accepts being considered as a “holocaust author” on the condition that the holocaust is acknowledged as both a metaphor for human nature and as the collapse of European civilization. Kertész, in this respect, has an exceptional place in holocaust literature. Holocaust cannot be degraded into a trauma that is merely attempted to be overcome by Jews. Such a perspective keeps Kertész out of sociological/scientific clarity. Holocaust, beyond being a trauma, is a human tragedy. Holocaust leaves permanent marks for its survivors as a traumatic experience composed of physical and mental threats. Depreciation experience during and after the holocaust and awareness regarding this depreciation would become the driving force in Kertész’s authorship career. It can be said that Kertész’s articles and translation process towards maintaining his life were effective in development of his philosophical-sociological thought repertoire. Leading figures of French and especially German literature and philosophy, such as Voltaire, Nietzche, Flaubert, Dostoyevsky, Kafka and Camus were effective thinkers in Kertész’s process of maturation. Adopting an existentialist philosophy, the essential question to concern Kertész is why the Holocaust occurred rather than how. Instead of being in a “witness” role, displaying a “philosopher” behavior in his novels, holocaust and Auschwitz symbolize “the modern” Europe in the author’s critical thinking. According to the author aiming at acquiring a new identity over the intellectual destruction of holocaust, the latest version of modernity can be summed up with the crisis of both consciousness and public life. Kertész discusses what cannot be spoken about holocaust and the trauma experienced afterwards in his novels and calls readers to become “active”. The main subject of these three novels from a sociological perspective is to question what are the factors affecting the adaptation process and protagonist’s status of disintegration/integration with the society. His novels generally discuss individual’s struggle on existing outside the totalitarian order and his/her conscious. Kertész, in his novel, Fiasco, dwells upon the fact that literary work is commodified in socialist and totalitarian systems, the author is subjected to alienation by using author’s mental labor for the ideology. The problem of reification of culture and literature, according to Kertész, is the most important dialectic element or outcome created by the idea of modern society. For Kertész who opposes to the understanding of moralistdidactic literature, writing and resisting against the idea of totalitarianism are the same in meaning. Holocaust is a personal experience that the author will have to cope with throughout his subjective life, however, in authorship world, this is just a material and a tool. Author’s philosophy is a scientific-intellectual value exceeding Auschwitz. In Kertész’s three novels, mental suffering in cultural trauma leaves a deep damage for survivors of the holocaust. Being a father “while every place is Auschwitz” means becoming stakeholder of the destructiveness of totalitarianism. In his novel, Kaddish for an Unborn Child, male character Character B’s reluctance in having a child is the disclosure of holocaust trauma. The main purpose of Kertész in writing is his struggle of existence regarding his identity. In his novel, Fatelessness, in the author’s idea questioning themes of identity, fate, selection, freedom and their factual visibilities, fatelessness is -personal- loss of identity, and it appears as a result of the absence of willpower. Giving priority to controlling power of personal will in the construction of identity, Kertész adopts a particular attitude against all types of dictatorial thought and mechanism preventing such construction. In his novel, Kaddish for an Unborn Child, in which we come across with traces of an existentialist philosophy and anxiety, pessimism, disgust, mope, ontological mistrust and being deprived of epistemic basis, for an individual rejecting the totalitarian order, this alienation towards the order is equal to a type of resistance and struggle to exist. Meaningful definition of Judaism is determined according to criteria based on individual’s selection in either Kertész’s ideas and novel characters’ subjective world. Attempting to define Auschwitz as “a universal” problem by removing its quality of being “a marginal” problem, the author continues to defend this basic idea in his novels. There are studies available in European literature specifying him a postmodern writer. However, considering from a sociological perspective, we cannot characterize a thinker or author, who criticizes modernism and age of modernity, as postmodern by reason of their critical stance. Kertész’s criticism of latest-modern state of humanity does not make him a postmodern. One can place Kertész to anti-modernist trend, as an author who tries to show how the modern society and its tools with their “divine” role based on the power of the era and rationality cut off people from their nature and make them alienated rather than granting them the freedom. It is possible to evaluate Kertész’s novels as a call made towards self-reflexivity of modernity in this context which we consider as closer to intellectual stance of English sociologist A. Giddens and German sociologist U. Beck. Accordingly, modernity should question itself again and a new morals, new set of values and new sense of human-society should be introduced. In this context, one may consider Kertesz’s novels as cultural antidotes that bear the power to eliminate the barbarism carried by the European culture withi