The Sociology of Earthquake Victims (Gramsci, Althusser, Derrida, The State, The Civil Society and Looters)

Hello to all of you, dear sociopaths. We are going through very difficult times as a country. First of all, I wish God's mercy to those who lost their lives in Maraş and Antep earthquakes, and I wish patience to their relatives.

I mostly followed the news and took some notes. Today, in this broadcast, we will try to draw a sociological and psychological portrait of the earthquake agenda. In addition, just like Hannah Arendt, we will think without a handrail. In other words, without leaning on any dominant discourse, we will think as if we are the first to think about this issue.

First of all, let's talk about the issue of "Where is the state?"

As you know, in the first 48 hours after the earthquake, in the most critical period, people at the rubble shouted this sentence desperately. Then, on the following days, many sober-minded opinion leaders kept repeating: "Where is the state? Where is the state?"

I'm not saying this to criticize anyone, but if we examine this question from Gramsci's or Althusser's point of view, we come across a problematic situation.

The question of "where is the state?" is based on the following assumption: "State" and "civil society" are not the same thing; they are separated by certain boundaries. 

In other words, on 6 February 2023, there was a civil society formed by the survivors in Hatay, Antep or Adıyaman; however, there was no "the state". The state did not come. The state could not catch up. 

Is it really so? Are "the state" and "the civil society" really separate things or separate fields? Let's think about this:

When we listen to social scientists, no matter they are Marxist or liberal, we come across three definitions of the state:

1. "The state" is the opposite of "the civil society". (The state and the civil society are two poles that do not coincide.)
2. "The state" surrounds and encompasses "the civil society". (The cluster of "the state" encompasses the cluster of "the civil society".)

3. "The state" is the same thing as "the civil society". (We cannot speak of two poles or clusters. They are exactly the same thing!)

The Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, for example, in his early writings, distinguished between "the state" and "the civil society." He implied that "the state" is "the monopoly of the use of force" or "the monopoly of "legitimate tyranny" in the hands of the bourgeoisie. However, since a whole proletariat cannot be subdued by police batons or court decisions, there is also a need for voluntary hegemony. Then, Gramsci added that this voluntary hegemony is realized in civil society through organic intellectuals.

In short, what did Gramsci say in his early writings? 

Hegemony or consent is specific to the civil society. On the contrary, the use of force (the monopoly of legitimate violence) or sovereignty is specific to the state. 

Later on, my dear sociopathic brothers and sisters, Gramsci changed his mind. He observed the society he lived in and recognized that people were absorbing "representative democracy" day by day. Average Italian people were defending their system even more than the organic intellectuals. Italian workers, for example, thought that they had a sort of power on the future of their country, just because they could vote every 4 years.

Then, Gramsci realized that the mechanism called "the state" is not only a monopoly on the use of force but also an apparatus of hegemony. This means that we will look for the roots of our consent or acceptance in the representative parliamentary state rather than in the civil society. 

Gramsci, in his mature writings, came to the following point:

People should not perceive the word "state" only as the apparatus of government, but also as the private apparatus of hegemony and civil society. "The civil society" and "the state" are the same thing!

This view of Gramsci greatly influenced the French philosopher Louis Althusser, who was born a few decades later. Louis Althusser took an more radical view on this issue, my dear sociopathic brothers and sisters. He even refrained from using the words of "civil society" in his books and articles. "Civil society? Don't make me laugh!" he implied.

Then let's put it this way: According to the Althusserian approach, for example, we, as people living within the borders of Turkey, are all under the influence of the state's ideological and repressive apparatuses. We don't have a kind of autonomous civil society. What we call "the civil society" is "the state" itself! 

As you see, Althusser came to the same point as Gramsci. "The state" equals "the civil society". "The civil society" equals "the state". 

Yes, I have mentioned one point on which these two great thinkers agreed. Now let's talk about a fundamental point on which these two thinkers differed from each other: "Ideology". 

Gramsci approaches ideology neutrally. He says that the bourgeoisie has an ideology; the working class also has an ideology. These two classes are engaged in a kind of war in the ideological field, sometimes a war of maneuver, sometimes a war of positions, but always at the level of discourse or consent or hegemony. (I don't mean a war with stones, guns and rifles, etc. here.) In short, every collective subject has an ideology, and these different ideologies are in a dynamic state of war. 

As you know, Gramsci was a Marxist, and according to him, the requirement of his age was obviously socialism. (Here, I don't mean that socialism is an absolute truth. Gramsci didn't believe in absolute truths. He stated that every age has its own rights and wrongs.) 

Well, if the urgent requirement of Gramsci's age was "socialism", and if there were thousands of socialist men in Italy those days, this means that ideology can sometimes make people closer to the truth! Ideology is not a completely negative concept! It is neutral instead. In conclusion, as you have probably noticed so far, Gramsci had a more humanist perspective than Althusser. 

Althusser was not as humanist as Gramsci. In fact, he was not humanist at all. What did Althusser say about ideology? Man cannot establish a naked contact with the truth. Man is constantly summoned by ideologies.

Let me continue with a funny story written by Althusser: The classical story of Christianity. However, before telling, I need to remind you of the fact that ideology has four basic stages which Althusser called "the double mirror structure of ideology". If it is OK, we can start our classical story. 

1. Ideology calls out to individuals as a subject.

Two Christian parents take their child to a church. The priest of the church immerses the child in holy water. Then, he cuts the child's hair a little and throws it into the holy water. After that, they start to circle around the water all together: The priest in front, the child behind him, and the parents behind the child. They walk around the holy water slowly 3 or 4 times with crosses and candles in their hands. In short, they say to the child: "From now on, you are a Christian."

2. Individuals are included in the subject.

The child starts to see himself as a Christian. When a friend asks his religion at school, he says he is a Christian. As a result, the child is now included in the Christian subject, which is produced by ideology.

3. Subjects recognize both themselves and other subjects.

As the child grows up, he learns more about Christianity, reads the Bible, worships, prays and so on. Moreover, as he socializes or researches, he learns that there are some other religions. He creates a simple categorization in his mind including Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Christians, and so on.

4. If the subjects know who they are, if they think and act accordingly, if everything is in the right place, there will be nothing to worry about: Amen!

Similarly, the child becomes the subjects of whatever ideologies have called him during his life: A white man, a supporter of Manchester United, a feminist, a vegan, etc. As you can see, this is a very antihumanist point of view, and this is what distinguishes Althusser from Gramsci's humanism. 

If we go back to our earthquake agenda by blending the ideas of Gramsci and Althusser, we see the following: 

The question of "where is the state?" is just a paradox.

The state doesn't go anywhere. The state does not arrive at anywhere. The state is always there with all its ideological and repressive apparatuses. If you go to vote every 4 years, voluntary hegemony has already been realized. If you pay your taxes every month without tiring the police or going to jail, either you enjoy this obligation or there is nothing you can do against the state's laws. Either way, you belong to "the state" as an ideological subject!

If the first question that came to the mind of earthquake survivors in Maraş or Hatay is "where is the state?", it is because the state is always there. This is what I mean by saying "paradox". Survivors who couldn't stop repeating this question near the rubbles were nobody but the subjects of "the state" ideology. In other words, earthquake victims were the parts of "the state" both ideologically and ontologically.

Why am I telling you this? The dominant discourse here should be "where are the rulers?" not "where is the state?" If you ask where "the state" is instead of the rulers or the bourgeoisie, this only serves to strengthen the legitimacy of the rulers. Keeping the dominant discourse in this frame is what the rulers want most because, as you know, the sanctity of the state is still one of the most powerful discourses in the world. 

"The state" has always been in Maraş or Hatay even though survivors believe the opposite. Even if all of the survivors say "the state was not here when we needed it", it is just a kind of illusion. They actually mean the absense of the responsible institutions and rulers; they just use the wrong words. 

The responsible people (the rulers) who couldn't make provision in advance and couldn't arrive at the earthquake zones on time will continue hiding behind the legitimacy of "the state" forever, so I advise everyone to make efforts for asking the right question. When we look back in the future, in an environment where the legitimacy of "the state" is debated, it is quite obvious who will benefit and who will lose. We have to be aware of this.

I want to move on to my second note: The issue of looters.

Now, let me talk very clearly and directly: For whatever reason, if a person enjoys videos including physical torture, there is a problem with that person's morality. In my opinion, morality is most needed on this kind of bad days.

There was a video circulating on Twitter. It was only 40-50 seconds long, and it was not clear who the beaters and the beaten people were. The terribly beaten people were supposedly looters. They supposedly tried to steal some TVs, washing machines, dishwashers from the shops which were naturally closed due to the earthquake chaos in Hatay and Maraş. I don't care whether they really did this. I only care civilized norms and virtue of humanity insteading of watching a lynch to death on Twitter.

I can understand the psychology there to some extent. I cannot blame those angy people for their loss of autocontrol. Maybe, they lost some of their relatives as well as their homes. Morever, probably, they couldn't get enough professional help from the responsible institutions. Imagine that when they were in this terrible psychology, suddenly, they were informed that there was a looter in their neighborhood! What kind of reaction would you expect in this scenerio?

However, the police cannot torture anyone under any circumstances! Those who applaud this torture on social media today may be tortured at a police station tomorrow for a completely different issue. Torture shouldn't be normalized.

Let's skip the police part... If a person is able to watch such videos with proud and pleasure... If he doesn't feel even uncomfortable with what he has watched... If he tends to judge the "accused one" very quickly without knowing the "behind-the-scenes" or any other details about the story... If he tends to tweet like "I wish the torture lasted longer", "I wish another weapon was used", "Bravo police! Beat harder please!" etc. from his cosy home... It means that person's moral is seriously problematic. 

Why?

"What if one of the people accused of being a looter is innocent?" Why does this possibility cross your mind when you watch the torture with pleasure? Indeed, there were some people who were tortured just because of misunderstanding. In addition, for example, we have never seen a building contractor being tortured, as Ilyas Salman said. Does it mean that our society likes torturing only small thieves?

How can you make a judgment based on a 40-second video that was shot in an atmosphere that was extremely prone to misunderstandings? These ignorant reactions reminded me of two Europeans philosophers. We have talked about both names on this channel so far. The first one is Hannah Arendt with her book, "the Banality of Evil", and the second one is Jacques Derrida.

Someone who has read any book or article of Derrida, for example, would not react that way because he would know that all those instantaneous decisions, from the second at which the videographer starts recording, to the angle at which he stands, to the points at which he zooms in or out, to when he ends the recording, actually constitute a process of construction. Therefore, it can be said that torture videos are actually texts written by the people who have shot the video. This is exactly how Derrida reads those torture videos. If he were alive, Derrida would focus on the man holding the camera rather than the event itself. According to his perspective, all videos are the texts of the people who shoot them. 

This is exactly why Derrida said "There is nothing outside the text".  

Let me give you another example. Imagine that there is a fight and a sort of chaos in a neighborhood, and everyone in that neighborhood has got a camera. The idea is that everyone should record the fight in the best way possible. What happens then? Everyone produces a completely different text about the fight via his camera. After they are published, these videos open up completely different worlds of meaning for everyone who watches them. This is how ambiguous and variable meaning is, as Derrida sees it. 

As a result, although people are very far away from the naked truth and very far away from the earthquake zone both physically and mentally, if they can make definite judgments after watching 30-40 seconds torture videos and if they can derive pleasure from these videos, this is an indication of these people's bad morals.

Before completing my speech, I will make one last note.

In Turkey, the whole issue is discussed in terms of lack of merit. However, I think what we are experiencing is more than a lack of merit, it is a kind of modernization syndrome.

As you know, Turkey has borrowed lots of professions, such as PR specialist, medical technician, graphic designer, disaster specialist, public relations manager, information technologists, etc. from the West. Because these professions emerged originally in the West and have had relatively long histories there, they also have got functional handbooks with lots of accumulation inside. 

Let's talk about a hypothetical man who is a computer programmer in England. He has solved the technical part of his job. He has solved the practical part of his job, and nowadays, he has started to think about the ethical part of his job! Why am I saying that? In the United Kingdom, one of the trend topics is the ethical consequences of artifical intelligence these days.

We borrowed lots of professions from the West, but we mostly just borrowed their labels, titles or privileges. We have not internalized these professions' handbooks in my opinion. Actually, this is quite normal. This is a typical syndrome. We have been trying to put local shirts on western professions even today. However, because we haven't been able to synthesize the West and the Anatolia in a proper way for about 300 years, our "modern" shirts look like a problematic patchwork. Moreover, for the last 20 years, we have turned our political face to the East just because the government (AKP) has desired it. As a result, we are feeling a lot more pain of not being able to modernize than ever.

In Turkey, a person, if he has the necessary capitals, can become a theologian, a disaster recovery expert, an organization leader, a businessman, or anything else he wishes at the same time. Similarly, a person can be an actor, a singer, a journalist, a publisher, a spokesperson for an NGO and a lifeguard at the same time just because he has got 2 million followers. 

I want to ask a question at this point: Is there a truly qualified disaster recovery expert in Turkey who knows the theory, practice and ethics of his work? Are we sure about that? If "Y" person who was educated by Turkish institutions and is a so-called "disaster recovery expert" was in charge of AFAD rather than the current person, who is only a theologian, would we see a very different result? I am not sure about it.

As I said, I strongly believe that this is a typical modernization syndrome rather than a lack of merit. Almost all important professions are visible in Turkey with their names, labels, titles or privileges, but there aren't well-trained and expert staff who can take initiative and responsibility, unfortunately.

What is the result? Everyone who has enough money and network can take the responsibility of different expert roles no matter they are suitable or not. When the theologian becomes a disaster recovery expert, the soccer player digs through the rubble. When almost all the mainstream media become monkeys of power, the profession of journalism is left to popular Twitter accounts.

İsmail PİŞER (The founder of Sosyopat TVFM)

THE SOURCES

- Perry Anderson, 2007, Gramsci, Hegemonya, Doğu Batı Sorunu ve Strateji (BOOK)

- Louis Althusser, 2019, İdeoloji ve Devletin İdeolojik Aygıtları (BOOK)

- Michele Barrett, 2000, Marx'tan Foucault'ya İdeoloji (BOOK)

- Stuart Hall, 1999, “İdeolojinin Yeniden Keşfi: Medya Çalışmalarında Baskı Altında Tutulanın Geri Dönüşü” (ARTICLE) 

- Antonio Gramsci, 2014, Hapishane Defterleri (BOOK)

THE SUPPORTERS (THE SOCIOPATHS)

Oğuzhan Cebe

Seçil Cansever

Zuhal Tarar

Bahadır Tekin

Emrah Demirci

Salih Özal

Serhat Öz

İrem Aydın

Birsen Altaylı Özemir

Başak Kaplan

Nilgün Baykızı

Emre Yılmaz

Deniz Erdoğan

Emma

Mehmet Ersöz

Deniz

Selim Kızılboğa

Didem Dağkıran

Sümeyye Okyay

Neylan Öğütveren Aular

Hasan Sarı

Brave Brush

Kdjdkd Kaan

Abdulkerim Atlı

Tolgahan Erdoğan

Beti Beti

Rukiye Kayalı

Eren Onat

Betül Uslu