Karanlık miras ve ulusların yeniden inşası
Dark heritage and the reconstruction of nations
Yazar: ADEM SAFA DALLI
Danışman: DOÇ. DR. ZEYNEP GÜNAY
İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi / Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü / Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Ana Bilim Dalı / Şehir Planlama Bilim Dalı
Derece: Yüksek Lisans, 2021
Konu: Şehircilik ve Bölge Planlama = Urban and Regional Planning

Özet:
Karanlık miras ve iktidar arasındaki ilişki, iktidarın hakikate ve hakikat tarafından belirlenen özneye şekil verme kaygısından ötürü sorunlu olagelmiştir. Modern devlet, ulusal kimliği inşa etmek adına kalıplaştırılmış bireyselleştirme eylemini iktidar yapılarıyla uygulamaya koymaktadır. Bunu gerçekleştirirken işletilen hakikat rejimiyle rasyonelleşmenin tarzı belirlenerek hakikat üretilmekte; iktidarın etkisiyle dolaşıma sokulmakta ve söylemle belirlenmektedir. Sürece dahil olan her bir unsur bir olay olarak bütüne etki etmektedir. Miras bağımsız bir biçimde insanlığın ortak değerlerini besleyecek, demokrasi kültürünü geliştirecek bir imkana sahipken etki gücünün yüksek oluşu, ilgi çekiciliği ve işlevselliği nedeniyle iktidar tarafından iktidarın politikalarına alet olmaktan kaçamamış;en tarafsız olduğu sanılan anda bile politik bir misyonla yüklenmekten kurtulamamıştır. Karanlık miras üzerinden oluşturulan söylem iktidarın stratejisine hizmet etmek için kullanılmış;karanlık miras politikalarının bağımsızlığı sorunu aşılamamıştır. Bunun gerçekleştirilebilmesi için de karanlık mirasın arkasına gizlenen iktidarın politik misyonunun, stratejinin kendisinin açığa çıkartılması gerekmektedir. 
Bu araştırma, karanlık mirasın ulusun yeniden inşası sürecindeki rolünü Demokrasi ve Özgürlükler Adası üzerinde geliştirilen söylem üzerinden irdelemeyi amaçlamaktadır.Mirasın ulus ve ulus-devletle olan ilişkisini incelemeyi, karanlık mirasın neoliberal gündeme bağlı ulusal kimliğin yeniden yapılandırılma sürecindeki yeri üzerine kavramsal bir çerçeve sunmayı, Yassıada'dan Demokrasi ve Özgürlükler Adası'na dönüşümde etkili olan söylem üzerinden karanlık mirasın araçsallığını tartışmayı hedeflemektedir.
Bu hedefler doğrultusunda,'Mirasın ulus ve ulus-devletle olan ilişkisi nedir?', 'Neoliberal gündem çerçevesinde gelişen ulus, ulusaşırılık ve ulusal kimlik söylemi karanlık miras üzerinden nasıl okunabilir?', 'Demokrasi ve Özgürlük Adası üzerinden iktidarın "Yeni Türkiye" söylemi nasıl çözümlenebilir?'sorularının peşinden gidilmektedir. 
Bir karanlık miras örneği olan Demokrasi ve Özgürlükler Adası bu araştırmanın amacı olan, karanlık mirasın ulusun yeniden inşası sürecindeki rolünü açıklayarak mirasa yüklenen politik misyonu ortaya çıkartabilmek için incelenmeye değer bulunmuştur. Yassıada'dan Demokrasi ve Özgürlükler Adası'na giden süreç ve bu karanlık miras örneğinin'Yeni Türkiye' söylemine olan katkısı, bu söylem için nasıl kullanıldığı açıklığa kavuşturulmaya çalışılacaktır. Bunu yaparken tümdengelim çizgisi üzerindendünya üzerindeki gelişmeler ele alınacak, ardından Türkiye'nin siyasi, sosyal ve ekonomik arka planı gözler önüne serildikten sonra Demokrasi ve Özgürlükler Adası vaka örneği olarak çalışılacaktır.İnşaat üzerinden kentselleşen siyaset alanı ortaya koyulmaya çalışılırken Türkiye siyasalının önemli bir başlığı 'mağduriyet' üzerinde önemle durulmuştur. Temelde milliyetçi-muhafazakar sosyal tabana hitap eden Yeni Türkiye söylemi duygusal karşılığı Yeni Osmanlıcılıkla birlikte ele alınacaktır.Aynı zamanda İstanbul'un küresel bir kent haline getirilerek ranta açılmasında Yeni Osmanlıcılık kolay tanınabilir gösterge ve imgelerin üretimini sağlayan bir pazarlama stratejisi olarak değerlendirilecektir.Yeni milli kimliğin kurucu mekanı olarak İstanbul üzerinde özellikle durulacak olup duygusal zeminin oluşturulmasındaki önemi irdelenecektir.
Foucault'nun önerdiği yönteme uygun olarak, söylemin açık olduğu kabulüyle, teknik ve tematik bir analizin yerine bütüne bakarak, ada üzerinden oluşturulan söylemin neyi amaçladığı ve nasıl kullanıldığı anlaşılmaya çalışılmaktadır. Eleştirel söylem kavramı ve yaklaşımı, söylemin bir olay olarak etkileşime girdiği bu yapının kendi içerisindeki ilişkilerini tarif ederek çözümlemeye tabi tutmakta, arka planda yatanı, stratejinin kendisini açığa çıkartmaktadır.

Abstract:
During the time of writing this master thesis,Yassıada in which the court decision was made to execute the former Prime Minister Adnan Menderes, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Fatin Rüştü Zorlu, and the Minister of Finance, Hasan Polatkan, and 12 more people as a result of the first coup d'état of Turkey on May 27, 1960, is opened as a new open air museum with the new name of 'Democracy and Freedom Island'. The phrase on which the President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan constructed his opening speech was quite remarkable: "We cannot change the history, but we can change how the history is remembered in order to ensure its correct interpretation." This speech cannot be thought independently from the following questions: How can the way in which the history is remembered be changed, while history itself cannot be changed? What will this way of remembrance bring to the government? What is the purpose of renaming Yassıada, a leading example of Turkey's dark heritage, and reintroducing it to tourism as an open-air museum? For what purpose it is expected to serve? Most of the people prefer to forget about the disagreeableness, sorrows, and oppression of the past. Taking this into account, what is the motivation of deliberately reminding the true-life traumas? Which purposes do the person at the head of government have with the desire of reshaping the collective memory? What kind of process there is from Yassıada to Island of Democracy and Freedom? How is the island part of a bigger discourse?
The relation between the dark heritage and the power has become problematic because of the power's will to shape the truth and to shape the subject that is determined by the truth. The heritage has the possibility of nourishing the common values of humanity and improving the democracy culture. But still, it could not stop being part of the power strategies because of its high potency, attractiveness, and functionality. Even in the moment when it was thought most that it had been unbiased, it still could not avoid assuming a strategic mission. The discourse which was established on the dark heritage was used to serve for bigger discourses, the problem about the independence of the dark heritage strategies could not be overcome. To solve this problem, the power's mission hidden behind the dark heritage must be revealed. 
Modern state applies the individualization type with power structures in order to build the national identity, and it imposes us how to be a decent citizen and how to be good kids. During this process, the truth is produced by the determination of rationalization type by the truth regime, it is circulated by the effect of the power and the truth is determined by the discourse. All of these constitutes a whole and every factor affects the whole as an event. The critical discourse analysis analyzes the discourse by describing the relations within this structure, in which the discourse interacts as an event, and reveals what lies in the background, and the strategy itself.
This research aims to examine the role of the dark heritage in the reconstruction of the nation through Democracy and Freedom Island's critical discourse. It aims to examine the relationship of heritage with the nation-nationstate, to present a conceptual framework on the place of the dark heritage in the process of restructuring the national identity depending on the neoliberal agenda, and to discuss the instrumentality of the dark heritage through the influential discourse from Yassıada to the Island of Democracy and Freedom.
In line with these goals,the research is structured through the following questions: 'What is the relationship of heritage with the nation and nationstate?', 'How can the discourse of nation, transnationalism and national identity, developed within the framework of the neoliberal agenda, be read through the dark heritage?', 'How can the discourse of the "New Turkey" be analyzed through Democracy and Freedom Island?'.
The island of Democracy and Freedom, which is a leading example of Turkey'sdark heritage has been found worth examining in order to reveal the political mission attributed to the heritage by explaining the role of the dark heritage in the process of reconstruction of the nation. The transformation of Yassıada to the Island of Democracy and Freedom and that of contribution not only to dark heritagediscoursebut also to the discourse of the 'New Turkey' and how it is used for this discourse is explored. While doing this, the developments in the world are discussed through adeductive approach, and the reflection of this new discourse is analysed on the Island of Democracy and Freedom revealing the changing political, social and economic conjuncture of Turkey, In accordance with the method proposed by Foucault, with the assumption that the discourse is clear, instead of a technical and thematic analysis, it will be tried to understand what the discourse created on the island aims and how it is used. The attitude to be adopted in the analysis process will be the problematization of injustice.
The importance of Democracy and Freedom Island as a case studies lies beneath the fact that,until today, it has been tried to gain power with the discourse of "man of the nation" through the execution of the head of state, the representative of the civil nationalist-conservative segment outside the state aristocracy and the military tutelage regime. Through this local example of the dark heritage, pain is reminded, and it is included in the process of power concentration and transformation is realized through fear. A group of legitimacy is produced through the grievances experienced, a new national identity is built on this legitimacy, and counter-propaganda is made over the grievances of the past in all kinds of mistakes.
The discourse to ensure that history is correctly interpreted by changing the way it is remembered is part of a larger one. This way of remembering and interpretation reveals itself through a diverse medium of discourses. The Island of Democracy and Freedom finds a place in the discourse beyond being a coordinate on the map. This is how it is presented. It becomes part of the language and the reality created by language. Today, in the twenty-first century, society is considered as a linguistic network, while discourse itself is accepted as a linguistic practice and at the same time an action. Rather than a single truth and a single point of reference, there are truths, realities constructed by discourses. Social life, social relations, culture are established with language and exist in it. Critique of daily life is integrated with academic studies and a hermeneutic approach is made by making use of social theory and language theories withcritical discourse analysis. In this way, the power relations and the dominant discourse are revealed, and 'strategy' is understood. Since this research is an interpretation effort that focuses on possible meanings instead of a thematic and technical analysis, critical discourse analysis fed by social and political theory has been preferred.
In this context, the research consists of three main parts following the introduction:
The first part focuses on the nation-state – nation-heritage relationship, and the invention of tradition. A historical background is created by trying to explain the emergence of nation and national identities, the conditions that prepared this transformation in the world order and the transformations caused by these conditions in the human mind. On this background, the importance of heritage for nationalists and its role instructuring national identities are revealed.
In the second part, the second period reconstruction process is discussed, and the function of the dark heritageis tried to be revealed within the frame of neoliberal agenda that emerged in the second half of the twentieth century as part of the macro developments in the world since the 1950s.
In the third part, the discourse produced by and for the Island of Democracy and Freedom is examined as a case study, and the conceptual framework created in the first two chapters are tested and clarified through the new discourse of Turkey.