FARZDAN HAKKA: TÜRKİYE’DE BAŞÖRTÜSÜ TARTIŞMALARINDA KURUMSAL TERCÜME

Öz

Bu makale, Habermas’ın “kurumsal tercüme koşulunu” Türkiye’de başörtüsü meselesi üzerinden tartışmaktadır. Argüman, gayri-resmî kamusallık ile parlamento, mahkemeler gibi kurumsal eşikler arasında işleyen “iki kanallı model”in fiiliyatta nasıl tercüme baskıları ürettiğini göstermeye dayanmaktadır. 2008 Anayasa değişikliği görüşmelerine ait TBMM Genel Kurul tutanakları ile aynı aktörlerin yakın dönem medya demeçlerinden oluşan odaklı bir korpus üzerinde eleştirel söylem analizi uygulanmaktadır. Analiz birimi, farz/emir, mahremiyet, iffet gibi dinî kaynak çerçevelerden hak, eşitlik, ayrımcılık yasağı ve insan onuru gibi genel erişilebilir kategorilere yapılan tercüme hamlelerinden oluşmaktadır. Çalışma, tercümeyi normatif hedefler, kurumsal tasarım ve söylemsel yan etkileri birlikte düşünen bir siyasal teknoloji olarak kavramsallaştırmakta, Türkiye bağlamında tercümenin dini dilden seküler dile ve seküler dilden dini dile olmak üzere çift yönlü işleyebildiğine işaret etmekte ve farklı alanlara taşınabilir pratik okuma ilkeleri önermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kurumsal Tercüme Koşulu
• Kamusal Akıl
• Başörtüsü
• Eleştirel Söylem Analizi
• Post-seküler Toplum

FROM FRAD TO RİGHTS: INSTİTUTİONAL TRANSLATİON İN TURKEY’S HEADSCARF DEBATES

Öz

This article examines Habermas’s “institutional translation proviso” through the case of the headscarf in Turkey. It argues that the “two-track model” operating between the informal public sphere and institutional thresholds such as parliament and the courts generates translation pressures in practice. critical discourse analysis is applied to a focused corpus comprising plenary transcripts of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey from the 2008 constitutional amendment debates and contemporaneous media statements by the same actors. The unit of analysis consists of translation moves that recast religiously sourced frames such as obligation/command, privacy, and chastity into generally accessible categories such as rights, equality, the prohibition of discrimination, and human dignity. The study conceptualizes translation as a political technology that jointly considers normative aims, institutional design, and discursive side effects; it further shows that, in the Turkish context, translation can operate bidirectionally, from religious to secular language and from secular to religious and proposes transferable, practical reading heuristics for application across other domains.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Institutional Translation Proviso
• Public Reason
• Headscarf (Hijab)
• Critical Discourse Analysis
• Post-secular Society

Kaynakça

1. Aktaş, C. (2005). Bacı’dan Bayan’a İslamcı Kadınların Kamusal Alan Tecrübesi. Kapı Yay.
2. Areshidze, G. (2017). Taking Religion Seriously? Habermas on Religious Translation and Cooperative Learning in Post-secular Society. The American Political Science Review, 111(4), 724-737. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26542101
3. Asad, T. (2018). Secular Translations:Nation-State, Modern Self, and Calculative Reason. Columbia University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/asad18968
4. Başoğlu, N. (06.06 2020). Cemil Çiçek’i. NetGaste. https://www.netgaste.com/makale/4807144/necdet-basoglu/cemil-ciceki-izlerken#:~:text=YÖK%20ve%20Diyanet%20İşleri%20Başkanı,başörtülü%20üniversiteli%20öğrenciyi%20kabul%20etmeyeceğim
5. Baumeister, A. (2011). The Use of “Public Reason” by Religious and Secular Citizens: Limitations of Habermas’ Conception of the Role of Religion in the Public Realm. Constellations, 18(2), 222-243. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8675.2011.00635.x
6. Bergdahl, L. (2009). Lost in Translation: On the Untranslatable and its Ethical Implications for Religious Pluralism. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 43(1), 31-44. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2009.00662.x
7. Bianet. (7.02.2008, 31.10.2013). Günün Sorusu Üniversiteye Hangi Başörtüsünün Girebileceği. Retrieved 18.08.2025 from https://bianet.org/haber/gunun-sorusu-universiteye-hangi-basortusunun-girebilecegi-104526
8. Courtois, S. (2003). Droit et démocratie chez John Rawls et Jürgen Habermas : fondationnalisme des droits ou démocratie délibérative ? Politique et Sociétés, 22(2), 103-124. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.7202/007876ar

9. Courtois, S. (2010). La religion dans l’espace public : quelques commentaires sur les positions récentes de Habermas. Dialogue, 49(1), 91-112. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0012217310000132
10. Earle, C. S. (2018). Religion, Democracy, and Public Writing
11. Habermas on the Role of Religion in Public Life. College English, 81(2), 133-154. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26773416
12. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis : the critical study of language. London ; New York : Longman, 1995. https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/999894935602121
13. Göle, N. (2011). Modern Mahrem. Metis Yay.
14. Habermas, J. (2008). Between Naturalism and Religion: Philosophical Essays (C. Cronin, Trans.). Polity Press.
15. Habermas, J. (2008a). L'espace public et la religion. Une conscience de ce qui manque. Études, Tome 409(10), 337-345. https://doi.org/10.3917/etu.094.0337
16. Habermas, J. (2008b). Qu'est-ce qu'une société « post-séculière » ? Le Débat, n° 152(5), 4-15. https://doi.org/10.3917/deba.152.0004
17. Habermas, J., & XVI, P. B. (2006). Dialectics of secularization: On reason and religion. Ignatius Press.
18. Jakobsen, J. (2019). Moderate Inclusivism and the Conversational Translation Proviso: Revising Habermas's Ethics of Citizenship. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 11(4), 87-112. https://doi.org/10.24204/Ejpr.V11i4.2829
19. Kırık, H. (2007). Kamusal Alan ve Demokrasi: Örtünme Sorununu Yeniden Düşünmek. Salyangoz Yay.
20. Kubilay, Ç. (2010). İslamcı Söylemde Kamusal Alan ve Türban Tartışmaları: Karşıtlıklar, Kırılmalar ve Uzlaşmalar. Libra Yay. .
21. Lafont, C. (2007). Religion in the Public Sphere: Remarks on Habermas's Conception of Public Deliberation in Postsecular Societies. Constellations, 14, 239-259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8675.2007.00436.x
22. Mardin, S. (1973). Center-Periphery Relations: A Key to Turkish Politics? Daedalus, 102(1), 169-190. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024114
23. Rawls, J. (2006). Halkların Yasası ve “Kamusal Akıl Düşüncesinin Yeniden Ele Alınması“ (G. Evrin, Trans.). İstanbul Bilgi Yay.
24. Sánchez Corrales, C. (2024). The Habermasian Translation Proviso of Religious Content: Limitations in Understanding the TzimTzum Concept. Res Philosophica, 101, 1-538. https://doi.org/10.5840/resphilosophica20241012121
25. Sikka, S. (2016). On Translating Religious Reasons: Rawls, Habermas, and the Quest for a Neutral Public Sphere. The Review of Politics, 78(1), 91-116. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034670515000881
26. TBMM. (2008). Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi Tutanak Dergisi. Ankara: TBMM Retrieved from https://www5.tbmm.gov.tr/develop/owa/Tutanak_B_SD.birlesim_baslangic_yazici?P4=20073&P5=H&page1=1&page2=109#:~:text=Komisyon%20raporu%20101%20sıra%20sayısıyla,Cumhuriyeti%20Anayasasının%20Bazı%20Maddelerinde
27. Tyler, G. (2018). The Reciprocal Translation Proviso: An Alternative Approach to Public Reason. Politics and Religion, 11, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755048318000081
28. Waldron, J. (2010). The image of God: Rights, reason, and order. NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper(10-85).
29. Yates, M. (2007). Rawls and Habermas on religion in the public sphere. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 33(7), 880-891. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453707081685