Journals / Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 2 Sayı: 1

A Critique on the Extended-Self : Consumer as a Matafora

Genişletilmiş Benlik Üzerine Bir Eleştiri: Matafora Olarak Consumer

Pages
65–92
Publication Date
2019-01-15
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As a result, all these issues is aboutforming the “topographia of consumer” and the “homo economicus” including withthe “topos as an inner” and “topos as an exterior (outer)” in broad terms.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study criticizes the Belk’s “extended self ”.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Firstly, the term “consumer” isanalyzed with regards to “act of taking to under” and “topos as an under”.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result, all these issues is aboutforming the “topographia of consumer” and the “homo economicus” including withthe “topos as an inner” and “topos as an exterior (outer)” in broad terms.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Genişletilmiş benlik · tüketici · Teori

Abstract

This study criticizes the Belk’s “extended self ”. Firstly, the term “consumer” isanalyzed with regards to “act of taking to under” and “topos as an under”. Secondly,the term “self ” is analyzed in broad terms of “extensio”, “res extensa” with respectto construction of the “self ”. The critisism against the “extended self ” can be basedupon the question that how the object and it’s attribution, which is taken fromexternal world, are attached to the “self ”. So this study discusses the problem abouttransferring an object taken from the external world to “topos as an under” throughthe “consumer as an actor of taking to under”. Consumer can’t be seem to be bothas “topos as an under that objects are conveyed to” and as “matafora that objectsconveyor” in theory. The opinion of extendible self is also analyzed by the fact thatself isn’t divisible and simple in itself at theory. As a result, all these issues is aboutforming the “topographia of consumer” and the “homo economicus” including withthe “topos as an inner” and “topos as an exterior (outer)” in broad terms.

Özet

Bu çalışmada Belk’in “genişletilmiş benlik” düşüncesi eleştirilmiştir. Bu suretle;ilk olarak “tüketici” kavramı, “alta almak fiili” ve “alta alınan yer” açısındanincelenmiştir. İkinci olarak “benlik”, geniş manadaki “uzam” ve “uzamlı” açısındanve “benliğin” inşası itibariyle incelenmiştir. “Genişletilmiş benlik” düşüncesine ilişkineleştiri, “tüketicinin” dış dünyadan aldığı bir nesne ve bu nesnenin sahip olduğubir niteliğin hangi suretle “benliğe” eklendiği sorusu itibariyle temellendirilebilir.Bu manada dış dünyadan alınan nesnenin, “alta almak fiili’ni” icra eden olarak“tüketici” vasıtasıyla “alt olarak nereye” nakledileceği meselesi tartışılmıştır. Kavramolarak “tüketicinin” nazariyat itibariyle hem nesnenin nakledildiği “alt olarak yer”suretinde hem de nesnenin nakledicisi olarak “matafora” suretinde görünemeyeceğitartışılmıştır. “Benliğin”, nazariyat itibariyle bizatihi kendisinin basit ve bölünemezolması fikrinden hareketle, genişleyip genişleyemeyeceği fikri açılmıştır. Sonuçolarak, bu hususların geniş manada “iç olarak yer” ve “dış olarak yer” konusuitibariyle “consumer topografyası’nın” ve iktisadi bireyin teşkiline ait bir meseleolduğu düşünülmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

PAYLAN, M. A. (2019). A Critique on the Extended-Self : Consumer as a Matafora. Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 1, 65–92. https://ajindex.com/articles/1005971

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (19)

  1. Ahuvia, A. (2013). Beyond “Beyond the Extended Self ”: Russ Belk on Identity. J. N. Sheth içinde, Legends in Consuemr Behaviour: Russell W. Belk. SAGE Publications. Ahuvia, A. C. (2005). Beyond the Extended Self: Loved Objects and Consumers’ Identity Narratives. Journal of Consumer Research, 171- 184. Annumma, J., & Li, E. P. (2012). Studying Consumption Behaviour Through Multiple Lenses: An Overview of Consumer Culture Theory. Journal of Business Anthropology, 141-173.
  2. Aristoteles. (1993). Metafizik. (A. Arslan, Çev.) İzmir:
  3. Ege Üniversitesi Basımevi. Bagozzi, R. P. (2006). Explaining Consumer Behaviour and Consumer Action:From Fragmentation to Unity. Seoul Journal of Business, 12 (2), 112-143.
  4. Belk, R. W. (1976). It’s the Thought that Counts: A signed Diagraph Analysis of Gift Giving”. Journal of Consumer Research, 155-162.
  5. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the Extended-Self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 139-168.
  6. Belk, R. W. (1975). Situational Variables and Consumer Behaviour. Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (3), 157-164.
  7. Belk, R. W. (1990). The Role of Possessions in Constructing and Maintaining a Sense of Past. Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 669- 676. Belk, R. W., Wallendorf, M., & John F. Sherry, J. (1989). The Sacred and the Profane in Consumer Behaviour:Theodicy on the Odyssey. Journal of Consumer Research, 1-38.
  8. Bode, M., & Ostergaard, P. (2013). ‘The wild and wacky worlds of consumer oddballs’: Analyzing the manifestary context of consumer culture theory. Marketing Theory, 1-18.
  9. Brown, S., & Schau, H. (2008). Writing Russell Belk: Excess all areas. Marketing Theory, 8 (2), 143-165.
  10. Cohen, J. B. (1989). An Over-Extended Self? Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (1), 125-129.
  11. Curasi, C., Price, L., & Arnold, E. (2004). How Individuals’ Cherished Possesions Become Families’ Inalieanable Wealth. Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (December), 609-622.
  12. Çitil, A. A. (2012).
  13. Matematik ve Metafizik, Kitap1: Sayı ve Nesne. İstanbul:
  14. Alfa Yayınları.
  15. Duralı, Ş. T. (2013). Kutadgubilig Türkçe’nin Felsefe-Bilim Sözlüğü. İstanbul: Dergâh Yayınları.
  16. Duralı, Ş. T. (2011). Sorun Nedir? İstanbul: Dergâh Yayınları.
  17. Ferraro, R., Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2011). Our possessions, our selves: Domains of self-worth and the possession-self link. Journal Of Consumer Psychology, 21 (2), 169-177.
  18. Graeber, D. (2011). Consumption. Current Anthropology, 52 (4), 489- 511. Grubb, E. L., & Grathwohl, H. L. (1967).
  19. Consumer Self-Concept, Symbolism and