Berna Moran ve Edebiyat Sosyolojisi
Yükleniyor...
Dosyalar
Tarih
2011
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Selçuk Üniversitesi
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Berna Moran, Türkiye’de edebiyat sosyolojisi açısından önemli bir duraktır. Bir öncü isimdir. Türkiye’de sosyoloji, bilindiği gibi başından itibaren farklı alanların katkılarına açık olmuştur. Sosyoloji, özellikle siyaset bilimi, iktisat, tarih, edebiyat gibi disiplinler ile yoğun bir ilişki içinde olmuştur. Sözü edilen disiplinlerin toplumsal olana ilişkin geliştirdiği literatür ve bakış açısını, sosyoloji yakından takip etmiştir. Bu makalenin konusu olan Berna Moran da edebiyat eleştirisi alanında yaptığı çalışmalarla Türkiye’de sosyolojik düşünce ve dolayısıyla edebiyat sosyolojisi açısından önemsenmesi gereken bir katkı ortaya koymuştur. İngiliz Dili ve Edebiyatı uzmanı olan Moran, Türk romanı özelinde yaptığı analizlerle Türk düşünce ikliminde yerini almıştır. Çalışmalarının bağlamı göz önünde bulundurulduğunda, Moran’ın Türk toplumsal yapısını dikkate alarak bir eleştiri ve okuma gerçekleştirdiği söylenebilir. Gerek roman okumalarında gerekse genel edebiyat incelemelerinde toplumsal ve siyasal ortamı dikkatli bir şekilde vurgulamış olmakla edebiyat sosyolojisini önemsediğini göstermiştir. Bu makale, Moran’ın çalışmaları ile edebiyat sosyolojisi arasındaki bağı irdelemektedir
Berna Moran is one of the leading figures in the life of Turkish literature, who contributed significantly to literary criticism. He approached the literature in terms of both content and form. Moreover it is not wrong to say that Moran took on diverse methods in his studies. By selecting inter-methodism as a method, he did not give priority one method over another. Moreover, as he attached utmost importance to the inter-disciplinary approach, Moran took advantage of various disciplines such as political science, sociology, economics, psychology and philosophy in his literary criticism. This certainly granted him a more comprehensive outlook in his critics. Examining literary texts in terms of form, content, theme and background, Moran emphasized that life and literature are interwoven. With his in depth analysis, Moran largely contributed to the climate of Turkish intellectual and literal thought life. With regard to Moran’s writings, one can clearly see that he took the structure of Turkish society into consideration in terms of political and social aspects. He did not consider literature as an independent phenomenon but rather a byproduct of societal structure. In this sense, he contributed to the sociology of literature to a great extent and also became a pivotal actor in the development of sociology in Turkey. In addition to all these, Moran gave specific emphasis to sociological criticism and sociological reading. He sought to constitute strong ties between author, reader, literary work and society. He, moreover, argues that societal conditions have certain influences on the literature. Moran argued that sociological criticism is descriptive to a large extent and it entails neutrality without any value driven statements about the literary work. Moran further maintained that this type of criticism should be understood to be associated with the sociology of literature and the sociology of author. Sociological reading incorporates literature and literal works into some connections and contexts. Moran tried to understand the nature of literature with various theories. Combining different definitions, theories and visions, he sought to answer of what the literature is. He probed the concept of literature in terms of function, theme, purpose and form. He did not interpret the bond between the literature and reality, yet he debated within the border of different theories. In other words, Moran did not put forth an authentic definition or theory; however he investigated the nature of literature by adopting existing approaches. Moran’s place and vitality in the literature of sociology become evident especially in his novel analysis. His novel analyses are path breaking in many senses. An intellectual stream, even though it was not so strong, which took on the literature -in more general terms- and the novel -in more specific terms- as sources to understand socio-economic structure and societal transformation of Turkey, led to the creation of an intellectual platform to debate various issues by drawing from diverse disciplines. Moran became one of the pioneering figures with other people at the creation of such an intellectual. Another point which needs to be underlined here is that Moran did not solely review or analyze the novels. He also made political and social explanations in the form of a transformation story to make the novel more understandable for the readers. In addition to this, to understand at which context literal texts stood, the basic features of specific periods were evaluated by independent texts in his works. Moran conducted his reviews with a specific emphasis on the intricate relationship between literature and society. His multidirectional text analysis must have probably stemmed from such an understanding. Beyond a simple textual reading, Moran elaborately incorporated social and political contexts which built up the background of the texts in his reviews. He argued that it is mandatory to understand the vision of the author in order to understand the literal texts properly. His attitude paves his way to contribute Turkish political thought life in the context of the sociology of novel and the sociology of literature. Moran also gave a specific attention to the social and political epochs. He underlined that it is necessary to form ties between formal and thematic tendencies and literal understanding, social and political features and zeitgeist of a particular epoch. Since that epoch grant a background to the novel and novelist. Not only the period that covers the imagined reality of the story told, but the period that covers the reality we currently live has also reflections to the imaginary world of the novel. In this sense, it is not so wrong to say that the novelist breathe in the air that he lives in. Novelist engaging in the popular debates of his time gives his answer mostly with the novels he/she wrote. Even though the theme of the novel can be thought to be a way to escape the reality that we live, it is always possible to find links in the novel that is associated with the real life. Therefore Moran started his analyses with the epoch that the novel is written. Such a point of view is necessary to understand the genuine discourse beneath the surface of the novel. Moran, for instance, argued the determining influence of the time period on the literature by talking about “how second term of the novel was caused by social, historical and economic factors”. Each epoch has its own structure as well its own problems. Therefore, a novelist cannot be thought to be free from the time period that he/she lived in. One of the characteristics of the Moran was that he considered novel as a mirror of social problems. He took inner and outer structures into consideration. He favored neither a solely thematic reading nor a simple formal reading of the text. He approached both of these readings as nested categories and therefore made his analysis by taking advantage of both. I assume that this feature is the one that makes Moran’s works original. Moran, with his analyses, gave credit to the idea which suggests that it is possible to understand a particular society by looking at the novels of that society and, in doing so, he clarified his path for a such point of view a bit more. He gave important hints that to what extent literature in general and novel in particular have associations with the social structure. Despite Moran did not seek to form sociological knowledge by itself, his works can be assessed within the borders of the field. Therefore it can be argued that Moran’s works have close linkages with the discipline of sociology.
Berna Moran is one of the leading figures in the life of Turkish literature, who contributed significantly to literary criticism. He approached the literature in terms of both content and form. Moreover it is not wrong to say that Moran took on diverse methods in his studies. By selecting inter-methodism as a method, he did not give priority one method over another. Moreover, as he attached utmost importance to the inter-disciplinary approach, Moran took advantage of various disciplines such as political science, sociology, economics, psychology and philosophy in his literary criticism. This certainly granted him a more comprehensive outlook in his critics. Examining literary texts in terms of form, content, theme and background, Moran emphasized that life and literature are interwoven. With his in depth analysis, Moran largely contributed to the climate of Turkish intellectual and literal thought life. With regard to Moran’s writings, one can clearly see that he took the structure of Turkish society into consideration in terms of political and social aspects. He did not consider literature as an independent phenomenon but rather a byproduct of societal structure. In this sense, he contributed to the sociology of literature to a great extent and also became a pivotal actor in the development of sociology in Turkey. In addition to all these, Moran gave specific emphasis to sociological criticism and sociological reading. He sought to constitute strong ties between author, reader, literary work and society. He, moreover, argues that societal conditions have certain influences on the literature. Moran argued that sociological criticism is descriptive to a large extent and it entails neutrality without any value driven statements about the literary work. Moran further maintained that this type of criticism should be understood to be associated with the sociology of literature and the sociology of author. Sociological reading incorporates literature and literal works into some connections and contexts. Moran tried to understand the nature of literature with various theories. Combining different definitions, theories and visions, he sought to answer of what the literature is. He probed the concept of literature in terms of function, theme, purpose and form. He did not interpret the bond between the literature and reality, yet he debated within the border of different theories. In other words, Moran did not put forth an authentic definition or theory; however he investigated the nature of literature by adopting existing approaches. Moran’s place and vitality in the literature of sociology become evident especially in his novel analysis. His novel analyses are path breaking in many senses. An intellectual stream, even though it was not so strong, which took on the literature -in more general terms- and the novel -in more specific terms- as sources to understand socio-economic structure and societal transformation of Turkey, led to the creation of an intellectual platform to debate various issues by drawing from diverse disciplines. Moran became one of the pioneering figures with other people at the creation of such an intellectual. Another point which needs to be underlined here is that Moran did not solely review or analyze the novels. He also made political and social explanations in the form of a transformation story to make the novel more understandable for the readers. In addition to this, to understand at which context literal texts stood, the basic features of specific periods were evaluated by independent texts in his works. Moran conducted his reviews with a specific emphasis on the intricate relationship between literature and society. His multidirectional text analysis must have probably stemmed from such an understanding. Beyond a simple textual reading, Moran elaborately incorporated social and political contexts which built up the background of the texts in his reviews. He argued that it is mandatory to understand the vision of the author in order to understand the literal texts properly. His attitude paves his way to contribute Turkish political thought life in the context of the sociology of novel and the sociology of literature. Moran also gave a specific attention to the social and political epochs. He underlined that it is necessary to form ties between formal and thematic tendencies and literal understanding, social and political features and zeitgeist of a particular epoch. Since that epoch grant a background to the novel and novelist. Not only the period that covers the imagined reality of the story told, but the period that covers the reality we currently live has also reflections to the imaginary world of the novel. In this sense, it is not so wrong to say that the novelist breathe in the air that he lives in. Novelist engaging in the popular debates of his time gives his answer mostly with the novels he/she wrote. Even though the theme of the novel can be thought to be a way to escape the reality that we live, it is always possible to find links in the novel that is associated with the real life. Therefore Moran started his analyses with the epoch that the novel is written. Such a point of view is necessary to understand the genuine discourse beneath the surface of the novel. Moran, for instance, argued the determining influence of the time period on the literature by talking about “how second term of the novel was caused by social, historical and economic factors”. Each epoch has its own structure as well its own problems. Therefore, a novelist cannot be thought to be free from the time period that he/she lived in. One of the characteristics of the Moran was that he considered novel as a mirror of social problems. He took inner and outer structures into consideration. He favored neither a solely thematic reading nor a simple formal reading of the text. He approached both of these readings as nested categories and therefore made his analysis by taking advantage of both. I assume that this feature is the one that makes Moran’s works original. Moran, with his analyses, gave credit to the idea which suggests that it is possible to understand a particular society by looking at the novels of that society and, in doing so, he clarified his path for a such point of view a bit more. He gave important hints that to what extent literature in general and novel in particular have associations with the social structure. Despite Moran did not seek to form sociological knowledge by itself, his works can be assessed within the borders of the field. Therefore it can be argued that Moran’s works have close linkages with the discipline of sociology.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Edebiyat, Edebiyat sosyolojisi, Edebiyat eleştirisi, Roman, Literature, Sociology of literature, Lirerary critisizm, Novel
Kaynak
Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
Sayı
26
Künye
Alver, K., (2011). Berna Moran ve Edebiyat Sosyolojisi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 26, 63-72.
