The Anthropology of Dominance: The Ruler’s Choices against the Primary Constraints Concerning Extermination of Dissidents

Yıl 2017, , 79 - 107, 30.06.2017

Muhsin Altun

https://doi.org/10.1501/antro_0000000342

Öz

This article, with a particular reference to the rise of early states and civilizations in southern Mesopotamia besides some relevant historical and anthropological finding, focuses on the main constraints that a “Ruler” confronts when he committed to exterminate dissidents. Such a Ruler needs to go beyond the constraints which largely derive from centralized state functions such as judiciary, security, and redistribution. We then suggest this heavy-cost project could be achieved through distortion of original purposes of institutions particularly courts, police-army, and financial-economic units. To this end, Ruler should first adopt dialectically an antagonistic character on his behalf to destruct the ground of legitimacy on which he stands (1), introduce his plans on a “state-making” basis (2), and should invoke guidance of “gastro-politics”, and revelations of priests and wizards in interaction with his dependents which are more than simple followers (3). However, both textual and archaeological records provide little to suggest all these led the way to the goal concerned, but more to existence of an opposition balancing Ruler’s destructive tendencies. Furthermore, they imply that Ruler, instead still remaining as a real ruler, should equip himself with some “gangster-style” skill in this vein. Relying on this, we suggest thinking about the nature and the limits of Ruler’s power under any regime may allow us to understand possible challenges and degree of success to which such an assertive goal is vulnerable

Anahtar Kelimeler

Political Violence, Gastro-politics, Dependency, Dominance, Militarization.

Tahakkümün Antropolojisi: Muhaliflerin İmhasına İlişkin Başlıca Sınırlılıklar Karşısında “Hükümdar”ın Seçenekleri

Öz

Bu çalışma, ilgili bazı tarihsel ve antropolojik bulgular yanında Güney Mezopotamya’daki ilk devlet ve uygarlıkların yükselişine atfen, muhalifleri yok etmeye azmetmiş bir “Hükümdar”ın karşılaşacağı başlıca sınırlılıklara odaklanmaktadır. Böyle bir Hükümdar, büyük ölçüde yargı, emniyet ve yeniden dağıtım gibi merkezi devlet işlevlerinden kaynaklanan sınırlamaların ötesine geçme gereği duyar. Dolayısıyla bu yüksek maliyetli projenin mahkemeler, emniyet-ordu ve mali-ekonomik kurumların özgün amaçlarından saptırılmasıyla başarılabileceğini öne sürmekteyiz. Hükümdar bu amaçla, önce üzerinde durduğu meşruiyet zeminini yıkmak için diyalektik olarak kendi karşıtı bir karakteri benimsemeli (1), planlarını bir “devlet kurma” temelinde yürürlüğe koymalı (2), basit takipçilerden daha fazlası olan bağımlılarla etkileşiminde “gastro-politik”in rehberliğinden, büyücü ve rahiplerin ilhamlarından yararlanmalıdır (3). Yine de yazılı ve arkeolojik kayıtlar, bütün bunların söz konusu amaca ulaştırdığına dair çok az, Hükümdar’ın yıkıcı eğilimlerini dengeleyen bir muhalefetin varlığına dair daha fazla bilgi sağlamaktadır. Dahası, kayıtlar Hükümdar’ın hala gerçek bir hükümdar olarak kalmaktansa bu yolda kendisini bazı “çetevari” becerilerle donatması gerektiğini ima etmektedir. Buna dayanarak, herhangi bir rejimdeki Hükümdar’ın iktidarının doğası ve kapsamı üzerinde düşünmenin, böylesine iddialı bir hedefin maruz bulunduğu olası zorlukları ve başarı derecesini anlamamızı mümkün kılabileceğini öne sürmekteyiz

Anahtar Kelimeler

Siyasal Şiddet, Gastro-politik, Bağımlılık, Tahakküm, Militarizasyon

Kaynakça

• Appadurai, A. (1981) “Gastro-politics in Hindu South Asia”, American Ethnologist, 8(3), 494-511.
• Appadurai, A. (2006) Fear of Small Numbers: An Essay on the Geography of Anger, Durham & London: Duke University Press.
• Arendt, H. (2012) Şiddet Üzerine, (B. Peker, Çev.). İstanbul: İletişim.
• Earle, T. (2013) Şefler Nasıl İktidara Geldiler? (B. Gürel, D. Demiröz, Çev.). İstanbul: Versus.
• Frangipane, M. (2002) Yakındoğu’da Devletin Doğuşu, (Z. İlkgelen, Çev.). İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat.
• Frangipane, M. (2010) “Different models of power structuring at the rise of hierarchical societies in the Near East: Primary economy versus luxury”, Development of Pre-State Communities in the Ancient Near East, D. Bolger & L.C. Maguire (Eds.). Barnsley, UK: Oxbow Books, 79-86.
• Gely, R. ve Spiller, P.T. (1989) The Political Economy of Supreme Court Constitutional Decisions: The Case of Roosevelt's Court Packing Plan. Working Paper Series on the Political Economy of Institutions No. 29. College of Commerce and Business Administration, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.
• González, R.J. (2007) “Towards mercenary anthropology?” Anthropology Today, 23(3), 14-19.
• Gusterson, H. (2007) “Anthropology and Militarism”, Annual Review of Anthropology, 36, 155-175.
• Hobbes, T. (2013) Leviathan, (S. Lim, Çev.). İstanbul: YKY.
• Holston, J. ve Appadurai, A. (1996) “Cities and citizenship”, Public Culture, 8, 187- 204.
• İbn Haldun (1989) Mukaddime (Cilt I-II), (Z.K. Ugan, Çev.). İstanbul: MEB.
• Jouvenel, B. (1962) On Power: Its Nature and the History of its Growth, (J.F. Huntington, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.
• Leuchtenburg, W.E. (1966) “The Origins of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “Court- Packing” Plan”, The Supreme Court Review, 1966, 347-400.
• Levi, M. (1988) Of Rule and Revenue, Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.
• Marinoff, L. (2014) “Biological Roots of Human Conflict”, Journal of Conflictology,5(2), 2-13.
• Martin, H.P. (1988) Fara: A Reconstruction of the Ancient Mesopotamian City of Shuruppak, Birmingham: Chris Martin & Associates.
• Martín-Baró, I. (1989) “Political violence and war as causes of psychosocial trauma in El Salvador”, International Journal of Mental Health, 18(1), 3-20.
• McC. Adams, R. (2004) “Reflections on the Early Southern Mesopotamian Economy”, Archaeological Perspectives on Political Economies, G.M. Feinman & L.M. Nicholas (Eds.). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 41- 59.
• McFate, M. (2007) “Building Bridges or Burning Heretics?: A Response to González”, Anthropology Today, 23(3), 21.
• Montesquieu (1998) Kanunların Ruhu Üzerine (Cilt-I), (F. Baldaş, Çev.). İstanbul: Toplumsal Dönüşüm.
• Olmstead, A.T. (1918) “The Calculated Frightfulness of Ashur Nasir Apal”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 38, 209-263.
• O’connor, K. (2015) The Never-Ending Feast: The Anthropology and Archaeology of Feasting, London: Bloomsbury Academic.
• Paulette, T. (2016) “Grain, storage, and state making in Mesopotamia (3200-2000 BC)”, Storage in Ancient Complex Societies: Administration, Organization, and Control, L.R. Manzanilla & M.S. Rothman (Eds.). NY: Routledge, 85-109.
• Samimian-Darash, L. & Stalcop, M. (2016) “Anthropology of security and security in anthropology: Cases of counterterrorism in the United States”, Anthropological Theory, 0(0), 1-28.
• Scheper-Hughes, N. (1992) Death without Weeping: The Violence of Everyday Life in Brazil, Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Sluka, J.A. (2000) “Introduction: State Terror and Anthropology”, Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror, J.A. Sluka (Ed.). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1-45.
• Tilly, C. (1985) “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime”, Bringing the State Back In, P. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer & T. Skocpol (Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 169-187.