Mehmet Şamil Dayanç
Lisans öğrenimini tam burslu olarak İstanbul Şehir Üniversitesi'nde tamamladıktan sonra "Osmanlı Kuruluş Anlatıları: Bağlam, Tür ve Türsel Sabitlenmezlik" başlıklı yüksek lisans tezini Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Bölümünde 2022 yılında savundu. Doktora öğrenimine Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Bölümünde devam etmektedir.
less
InterestsView All (22)
Uploads
PASAJ
Papers
Book Reviews
Conference Presentations
Abstract: After the fields of history and literature become a discipline, one side constructs its inner features by claiming the truth, while the other side is built in a self-contained, self-referential and autotelic manner in order to reveal the distinctive features of fiction. In other words, the route of the disciplines of history and literature works with the emphasis on scientificity, together with the features they have in their own structure. While looking at these two areas together first puts the emphasis on scientificity to the fore, poststructuralist criticisms directly build their own narratives by opposing the scientific claim. The main purpose is to question the "whatness" of the disciplines. On the one hand, it is questioned whether the discipline of history is a transparent transmitter of truth or not, on the other hand, it is discussed whether literature is a self-sufficient autonomous structure. These debates move in line with the questioning logic of postmodern history and literary theory. Basically, there is a question like this: Where do postmodern inquiries take the disciplines of history and literature? While historical texts are examined like literary works, literary works are positioned as texts that reveal the meanings of cultural circulation. In such a situation, the disciplines of history and literature become almost interchangeable. The transformation of the bifurcated disciplines, with the emphasis on scientificity in the beginning, into a position that can be replaced by postmodern inquiries essentially brings about a set of meanings about "zeitgeist". Along with postmodern inquiries, the potential to reach the truth, which is woven with a positivist logic, starts to be reconsidered. The ambiguity at the point of reaching the truth intensifies the permeability of history and literature. The aim of this paper is to propose to read the disciplines of history and literature together with an interdisciplinary perspective, on the one hand, and to question the logic of postmodern criticism on the other hand. In other words, the pursuit of questions such as "how to evaluate radical inquiries about the essence of history and literature", "on what ground did these inquiries come into play" and "what is the validity of these inquiries" points to the main problematization areas of this paper. All these problematization areas aim to underline some question marks, both starting from an interdisciplinary ground and against an unlimited permeability.
Thesis Chapters
4. Sayı: Otobiyografi
Abstract: After the fields of history and literature become a discipline, one side constructs its inner features by claiming the truth, while the other side is built in a self-contained, self-referential and autotelic manner in order to reveal the distinctive features of fiction. In other words, the route of the disciplines of history and literature works with the emphasis on scientificity, together with the features they have in their own structure. While looking at these two areas together first puts the emphasis on scientificity to the fore, poststructuralist criticisms directly build their own narratives by opposing the scientific claim. The main purpose is to question the "whatness" of the disciplines. On the one hand, it is questioned whether the discipline of history is a transparent transmitter of truth or not, on the other hand, it is discussed whether literature is a self-sufficient autonomous structure. These debates move in line with the questioning logic of postmodern history and literary theory. Basically, there is a question like this: Where do postmodern inquiries take the disciplines of history and literature? While historical texts are examined like literary works, literary works are positioned as texts that reveal the meanings of cultural circulation. In such a situation, the disciplines of history and literature become almost interchangeable. The transformation of the bifurcated disciplines, with the emphasis on scientificity in the beginning, into a position that can be replaced by postmodern inquiries essentially brings about a set of meanings about "zeitgeist". Along with postmodern inquiries, the potential to reach the truth, which is woven with a positivist logic, starts to be reconsidered. The ambiguity at the point of reaching the truth intensifies the permeability of history and literature. The aim of this paper is to propose to read the disciplines of history and literature together with an interdisciplinary perspective, on the one hand, and to question the logic of postmodern criticism on the other hand. In other words, the pursuit of questions such as "how to evaluate radical inquiries about the essence of history and literature", "on what ground did these inquiries come into play" and "what is the validity of these inquiries" points to the main problematization areas of this paper. All these problematization areas aim to underline some question marks, both starting from an interdisciplinary ground and against an unlimited permeability.