Performances and performance cultures are often seen in our discipline as indicative of the political unconscious in the way they shape dramatizations of collective myths and identities. Yet they are also so much entangled with the... more
Performances and performance cultures are often seen in our discipline as indicative of the political unconscious in the way they shape dramatizations of collective myths and identities. Yet they are also so much entangled with the present political agendas, the arts (and education) decrees and legislation, the support by local communities and audiences, and the general social and political climates in which they operate, respond to and aim to influence. In Turkey, for over a decade, politics and theatre are increasingly at odds with each other in a general climate that seeks to restrict freedom of speech and expression as well as the public representation and visibility of (political) identities that go beyond the homogeneity of an 'ethnically' Turkish nationhood and a (Sunni) Muslim denomination or cultural background. Moreover, right before the previous general elections and even more so after the failed coup attempt, the role of the state as a primary actor in identity politics has taken a nationalistic turn. Despite its ethnically diverse history and social reality, the homogeneous Turkish nation as predicated by the state leaves formally and publicly no space for cultural pluralism. Theatre and aesthetic protest take up an important social role in contesting mainstream notions of citizenship and in creating a space for plurality. In this keynote, I propose to do four things: 1. I will first focus on the current political climate in Turkey and look at its implications for the artist's response-ability (Lehmann 2006). 2. I will move on to reintroduce Turkey's protest culture after the Gezi uprisings and discuss how performativity in protest actions has the potential to be called a 'structure of feeling' (Williams 1977) with a wider history in political performance history. 3. I will unpack similarities and differences with protests and theatre cultures in the 1950s and 1980s. However, it must be said that my rereading of Turkey's history of aesthetic protest and the role of the artist within it will only reveal a very disparate story. 4. I will return to today's Turkey and pose some critical questions regarding the term ‘Gezi spirit’. I will conclude with the question whether or not the Gezi spirit is (or should be kept) alive and what it left us – as academics – to make sense of what is happening around us today.
Bu makalede, Gezi Parkı olayları sırasında ve sonrasında Türkiye’deki performatif protesto eylemleri ve bu bağlamda performans sanatçılarının rolü üzerinde duracağım. Butler’ın “performativite” anlayışı aracılığıyla, Gezi’nin... more
Bu makalede, Gezi Parkı olayları sırasında ve sonrasında Türkiye’deki performatif protesto eylemleri ve bu bağlamda performans sanatçılarının rolü üzerinde duracağım. Butler’ın “performativite” anlayışı aracılığıyla, Gezi’nin “performatif” protesto eylemlerinden bazılarının, yeni tiyatro oyunlarında da devamını gördüğümüz daha geniş çaplı bir kültürel dönüşüme nasıl tanıklık ettiğini açıklayacağım. Performans sanatçılarının bir dizi performatif eylem yoluyla Gezi’nin “taktiksel repertuarları”nın yanı sıra (Tilly, 1978), bir “duygu yapısı” (Williams, 1977) olarak Türkiye’deki protesto kültürünün ayrılmaz parçası haline gelmiş olan ‘yeni’ bir performativite anlayışı aracılığıyla da Gezi’nin simgesel siyasetine (Sears, 1993) katkılarının yadsınamaz olduğu kanısındayım. Özellikle önemli bir performatif taktiği Peggy Phelan’ın “etkin gözden kayboluş” kavramına başvurarak açıklayacağım. Duran Adama tekrar dönerek ve bu eylemi Judith Butler’ın (2011) yorumladığı biçimiyle Hannah Arendt’in “görünüş alanı” kavramına bağlayarak da, fark edilmemiş kalmak ile tanınmamış kimliklere alan açma talep etmek arasında, şimdiye kadar dile getirilmemiş ancak önemli bir ilişkiyi çözümlemeyi amaçlıyorum. Bunu yaparak, performatif protesto hareketlerini Türkiye'deki maddi muhalif kültürün ayrılmaz bir parçası olarak ele almanın yanı sıra, performatif protesto eylemlerini simgesel olarak okurken bunların kendine has toplumsal ve siyasi yönlerini göz ardı eden son dönem Tiyatro ve Performans Çalışmalarının da bir eleştirisini yapmayı amaçlıyorum.
In the months that followed the contested 2020 Presidential election in Belarus, especially in August and September, we observed the development of the contemporary history of the Belarusian protest and at the same time, mythologization... more
In the months that followed the contested 2020 Presidential election in Belarus, especially in August and September, we observed the development of the contemporary history of the Belarusian protest and at the same time, mythologization of this history manifesting in the creation of the self-image of a small quiet, kind and deeply good individual standing up to a powerful evil, the “Belarusian kitty.” The kitty has become a truly national symbol that stems as much from the national cultural mythology as from the contemporary Internet culture and is in sync with the national autostereotypes reflected in the opposition leadership narrative of Belarusians as peaceful, ethical, heroic and overall “incredible” people.
