SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Business and Management Studies: An International Journal / 2018 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 4

“EARTHQUAKE WILL PASS, AND THE LIFE WILL GO ON”: A CRITICAL READING OF PUBLIC SPOTS OF DASK

“DEPREM GEÇECEK, HAYAT DEVAM EDECEK”: DASK’IN KAMU SPOTLARI ÜZERİNE ELEŞTİREL BİR İNCELEME

Alper ASLAN
Emir ÖZEREN
Pages
1271–1284
Publication Date
2022-10-11
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)

Within the neoliberal precarization processto foster responsible subjects, DASK portrays the uneasiness—or properness—of compulsory guests throughhopes, anxieties and fears so that individuals are encouraged to get their compulsory earthquake insurance toavoid being a compulsory guest.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Neoliberal governmentality encourages individuals to value their life as a proper(ty).
📊
Key Findings & Data:The neoliberalvaluation of life embraces ‘self-responsible’ and ‘competitive’ individuals.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Within the neoliberal precarization processto foster responsible subjects, DASK portrays the uneasiness—or properness—of compulsory guests throughhopes, anxieties and fears so that individuals are encouraged to get their compulsory earthquake insurance toavoid being a compulsory guest.
🔬Design:Lab & Field Experiment
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Neoliberal governmentality encourages individuals to value their life as a proper(ty). The neoliberalvaluation of life embraces ‘self-responsible’ and ‘competitive’ individuals. Drawing on the contingency of life,neoliberal governmentality intervenes in affects to govern individuals. For instance, individuals are made anxiousby the insecurity, vulnerability and ambiguity about the unintended consequences of what may happen to them. Inthis study, we address how Turkish Catastrophe Insurance Pool/‘Natural Disaster Insurance Institution’ (DoğalAfet Sigortaları Kurumu—hereafter, DASK) intervenes in affects for neoliberal valuation of life as proper(ty).With an interpretive, a post-structuralist and a critical management approach, we examine and analyze the contentof the public spots of DASK through the lens of neoliberal governmentality. Accordingly, these public spots portraythe victims of Van earthquake as ‘compulsory guests’ and problematise being a compulsory guest. We remark thatthe compulsory guests do not feel at home at their relatives’ homes. Within the neoliberal precarization processto foster responsible subjects, DASK portrays the uneasiness—or properness—of compulsory guests throughhopes, anxieties and fears so that individuals are encouraged to get their compulsory earthquake insurance toavoid being a compulsory guest.

Özet

Neoliberal yönetimsellik, bireyleri yaşamlarını uygun bir şekilde değerlendirmeye teşvik eder. Yaşamın neoliberal değerlemesi “kendinden sorumlu” ve “rekabetçi” bireyleri benimser. Yaşamın durumsallığı üzerinden neoliberal yönetimsellik, bireyleri yönetmeye yönelik duygulara/duygulanımlara müdahil olur. Örneğin, bireyler kendilerine neler olabileceğinin beklenmedik sonuçları hakkında güvensizlik/güvencesizlik, savunmasızlık/kırılganlık ve belirsizlik nedeniyle endişe duymaktadırlar. Bu çalışmada Türkiye’de Doğal Afet Sigortaları Kurumu'nun (Doğal Afet Sigortaları Kurumu - DASK) yaşamın mülkiyet olarak neoliberal değerlemesinde duygulanımlara nasıl müdahale ettiğine işaret etmekteyiz. DASK'ın kısa filmlerinin içeriğini yorumlayıcı, post-yapısalcı ve eleştirel yönetim yaklaşımıyla neoliberal yönetimsellik bakış açısından incelemekte ve çözümlemekteyiz. Bu doğrultuda söz konusu kamu spotları, Van depreminin kurbanlarını “zorunlu misafir” olarak betimlemekte ve zorunlu misafirliği sorunsallaştırmaktadır. Zorunlu misafirlerin akrabalarının evlerinde kendilerini evlerinde gibi hissetmedikleri gösterilmektedir. Neoliberal prekaryalaştırma sürecinde DASK, bireysel sorumluluğu güçlendirmek için umut, endişe ve korkular yoluyla zorunlu misafirlerin yaşamak zorunda kaldığı huzursuzluğa ya da rahatsızlığa vurgu yaparak bireylerin zorunlu misafir olmaktan kaçınmak için zorunlu deprem sigortalarını yaptırmalarını teşvik etmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ASLAN, A., ÖZEREN, E. (2022). “EARTHQUAKE WILL PASS, AND THE LIFE WILL GO ON”: A CRITICAL READING OF PUBLIC SPOTS OF DASK. Business and Management Studies: An International Journal, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 4, 1271–1284. https://ajindex.com/articles/458714

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Anderson, B. (2010). Preemption, precaution, preparedness: Anticipatory action and future geographies. Progress in Human Geography, 34(6): 777-798.
  2. Anderson, B. (2012). Affect and biopower: towards a politics of life. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(1): 28-43.
  3. Anderson, B. (2014). Encountering affect: capacities, apparatuses, conditions. Surrey: Ashgate. Aradau, C. and van Munster, R. (2011). Politics of catastrophe: genealogies of the unknown. Oxon: Routledge. Blunt, A. & Dowling, R. (2006). Home. Oxon: Routledge. Böhm, S. & Land, C. (2012). The new ‘hidden abode’: reflections on value and labour in the new economy. The Sociological Review, 60(2): 217-240.
  4. Bröckling, U., Krasmann, S. & Lemke, T. (2011). From Foucault’s lectures at the collége de France to studies of governmentality. In U. Bröckling, S. Krasman and T. Lemke (eds.), Governmentality: Current issues and future challenges: 1-33. New York: Routledge.Butler, J. (2009). Frames of war: when is life grievable? London: Verso. Butler, J. & Athanasiou, A. (2013). Dispossession: the performative in the political. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  5. Davies, M. (1998). The proper: discourses of purity. Law and Critique, 9(2): 147-173.
  6. Dawney, L. (2013). The interruption: investigating subjectivation and affect. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 31: 628-644. de Goode, M. & Randalls, S. (2009). Precaution, preemption: arts and technologies of the actionable future. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 27: 859-878.
  7. Derrida, J. (2000). Hostipitality. Angelaki: Journal of Theoretical Humanities, 5: 3-18.
  8. Devisch, I. (2013). How (not) to properly abandon the improper? Angelaki: Journal of Theoretical Humanities, 18: 69-81.
  9. Dillon, M. & Lobo-Guerrero, L. (2009). The biopolitical imaginary of species-being. Theory, Culture & Society, 26(1): 1-23.
  10. Fleming, P. (2014). When ‘life itself’ goes to work: reviewing shifts in organizational life through the lens of biopower. Human Relations, 67(7): 875-901.
  11. Foucault, M. (1991).
  12. Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller (eds.), The Foucault Effect: pp.87- 104. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  13. Foucault, M. (1997). The essential work of Foucault, volume I: Ethics. (Translated by R. Hurley and others). New York: The New Press.
  14. Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population: lectures at the college de France, 1977-78. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: lectures at the c