SEKÜLER/LAİK DÜŞÜNCENİN ULÛM-İ İKTİSÂDİYE VE İÇTİMÂİYE MECMUASI ÖRNEĞİNDE DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2, 258 - 289, 31.12.2018

Nergis Yüzsüren

https://doi.org/10.20486/imad.414714

Öz

Sekülerizm ve laiklik, sosyo-ekonomik, kültürel ve toplumsal
olmak üzere oldukça geniş alanı kapsayan kavramlardır. Bu bağlamda çalışmamız
öncelikle, sekülerizm ve laikliğin tanımını, Avrupa’daki tarihsel sürecini ve
kökenini oluşturan belli başlı düşünce akımlarını ele almaktadır. Bu akımlardan
en önemlisi, metafizik hiçbir bilgiyi kabul etmeyen ve sadece deney ve gözlemle
doğru bilgiye ulaşılabileceğini ileri süren pozitivizmdir. Materyalizm,
evrimcilik ve liberalizm gibi yaklaşımlar da pozitivizmle birlikte seküler/laik
dünya görüşünün teşekkülünde etkili olmuştur. Çalışmada, Avrupa’daki sürecin
yanı sıra, Osmanlı Devleti’ni seküler düşüncenin ne boyutta etkilediği
araştırılmış ve devletin, bu sürece gerilemeyle birlikte girdiği tespit
edilmiştir. Devleti kurtarmak için Batılı devletlerin sistemini örnek almaya ve
birtakım ıslahatlar gerçekleştirmeye başlayan yöneticiler, bir bakıma
seküler/laik düşüncenin Osmanlı’da etkili olmasına
neden olmuşlardır. Bu etki de, seküler düşünceyi benimseyen ve bunu devletin
tek kurtuluş çaresi olarak gören yeni bir kuşağın yetişmesine sebebiyet
vermiştir. Dönemin basın hayatının hareketliliğinden ve Avrupalı devletlerin
desteğinden de yararlanan bu kişiler, düşüncelerini çeşitli gazete ve
dergilerde açıklama fırsatı bulmuşlardır. Bunların en önemlilerinden biri, 1908
ile 1911 yılları arasında yayımlanan Ulûm-i
İktisâdiye ve İçtimâiye Mecmuası’dır. Çalışmamız öz olarak bu derginin düşünce atmosferinin ne
kadar seküler/laik olduğunu ve hangi düşüncelerin sekülerlik/laiklik bağlamında
incelendiğini araştırmak olmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sekülerlik, Ulûm-i İktisâdiye ve İçtimâiye Mecmuası, Pozitivizm, Materyalizm, Liberalizm

Evaluation of Secular Thought/Laicism in The Context of Ulûm-ı İktisâdiye ve İçtimâiye Mecmuası Case

Öz

Abstract

Secularism and laicism are concepts
covering a broad area in socio-economy, culture and sociology. In this respect,
the definition of secularism, its historical development in Europe, and the
mainstream thoughts that had given its origins are the primary focus of this
study. Most significant one of these thoughts is positivism, which rejects all
the metaphysical information and proposes that the truth can only be found by
experimentation and observation. Materialism, evolutionism and liberalism
together with positivism, had significant influence on the development of
secular thought/laicism as well. Besides the process in Europe, the study also
looks into the development of secular thought in The Ottoman State and makes an
emphasis on the fact that this process had begun during the recession era of
the State. In order to save the State, the
governors of the time had begun to try the Western system and had made some
reforms, which in some respects, caused the secular thought and laicism to be
influential in Ottoman State. This influence, a new generation of people had also grown who
adopted secularism deeply and perceived it to be the only way to save the State
from its weak position. With the help of the press and the support of western
states, these people had the chance to explain their thoughts in some
newspapers and journals of the time. One of the significant ones of those
journals was Ulûm-i İktisâdiye ve İçtimâiye Journal, which
had been published between 1908 and 1911. The main subject of this study is to
show what thoughts had been re-addressed from the secular/laicism point of view
in this journal.

Summary

            Laicism and secularism concepts are
broadly used in socio-economic, cultural and sociological domains. In this
study these two concepts were defined and their development process were
investigated together with the mainstream ideologies in Europe. These two terms
are used interchangeably most of the time. While secularism insists on leaving
metaphysics and focusing on material world, laicism refers to a system, thought
or a person without religious influence. Laicism is mostly used to indicate the
separation of religion and politics in government.

            In the early times, religious
thoughts had significant influence on the government decisions and actions.
However, during the 15th and 16th centuries this situation began to change. The
enlightenment, renaissance and reform movement had paved the way for a new
world order. The late 18th century ideologies started to question the
legitimacy of the states and proposed that the authority should not come from
the God but from the very earth and the people. During this era the ideological
infrastructure of Europe evolved to question the theological and monarchical
basis of the political system. One of these ideologies was the Doctrine of
Natural Law, which is well-known for its thoughts about the birth of the states.
In this thought, people were living happily before state institutions were
created. Later on though, due to the requirements for security and division of
labor, they had made a contract and created the government. Therefore, the
origin of the state authority was not the God but people. In 18th century,
encyclopedists and enlightenment supporters published the book named
"Encyclopedia" and hence influenced the laicist thought in France.
They were  apparently criticizing the religious subjects and the current
state structure.Moreover, they were also proposing that only natural laws were
valid in universe, not the laws of God.

            Positivism was of the most
significant basis of the secular/laicist thought. Positivism believed that the
observation and explanation of natural phenomena is the only and the most
useful means for humanity. In this thought the fact was solely the senses and
the perceptions. According to August Comte who is one of the founders of
positivism, humanity had evolved eventually to positivism going through
theological and metaphysical stages and the specialty of this stage was that it
was the ultimate stage humanity could reach, in which phenomena were explained
by observation and experimentation, not by theological or metaphysical forces.

            Materialist philosophy denied
metaphysics as well and accepted only the conclusions of positive sciences.
Their reasoning proposed that since everything in universe is of material
nature, no other metaphysical entity or phenomena could exist. Karl Marks and
Friedrich Engels were the most significant defenders of materialism.

            Meanwhile, the theory of French
naturalist Jean Baptiste Lamarck, which stated that living things had developed
through a kind of evolutionary process was conflicting with the religious idea
that the species were constant and not changing in any way. According to this
theory, living things had emerged from non-living things and they had elevated
to more complex forms from primitive ones. Charles Darwin improved Lamarck's
theory proposing that this evolutionary process was based on adaptation,
inheritance and natural selection. Herbert Spencer on the other hand, thought
that such an evolution was the fundamental law in every field.

            Another ideology which was in
parallel with secularism/laicism was liberalism. Liberalism was an ideology
that presented liberty and independence to individuals in every aspect of life.
This thought assumed that the overall good of the whole society was nothing but
the sum of the individuals' self interests and therefore they should be freed
from any constraints. The implied liberty concept was a rather individualistic
comprehension. An English Economist, Adam Smith was the one who systematically
investigated this liberal approach which was based on individual liberty and
independence.

            Besides Europe, Ottoman State had
also been influenced by these ideologies. This study investigates in which
circumstances and to what extent Ottomans had been influenced by these
thoughts. For the regression of the Ottoman State various solutions were being
sought during this stage. As a result, systems of some of the European States
were taken as examples and some reforms were made accordingly. At the same time
a new generation had grown up who believed that the only solution for the
decline of the State was nothing but adopting secularism/laicism. They
published their thoughts in various newspapers and journals with the help of
their European counterparts.

In 1908, after the
announcement of 2nd constitutional monarchy, elections were made
and İttihat and Terakki Party took the control. They made significant
changes towards becoming a secular/laicist government until 1918. This can also
be observed in the media publications of the time. One of the media
channels İttihat ve Terakki Party was influenced by was Ulûm-i
İktisâdiye ve İçtimâiye Mecmuası, which was published in İstanbul in
1908-1911.This journal was almost the spokesperson of positivism in Ottoman
borders. The authors of the journal were significantly influenced by August Comte
and Herbert Spencer. They were writing especially about evolutionary and
organics society ideologies. Since these authors were important people in both
politics and public, their publications were mostly inline with the ideology of
the ruling party. Below given the brief summaries of their backgrounds, their
thoughts forming the basis of their secular/laicist approach, and their
interpretations of these ideas.

            In the journal, secularism and
laicism were interpreted from the "government" and "religion"
perspectives of the Western ideology. These thoughts were defended against all
the other ideologies and practices adopted to that date and provoked for
change. They were investigated in detail from education to human relations,
covering all of the public domains. This study shows that there are four
pillars all of these publications had based on: positivism, materialism,
evolution-ism and liberalism.

            Since one of the pillars,
positivism, rejects anything other than scientific information and provable propositions,
it also questions the religions. Therefore, according to positivism religion
should be removed from individual and public lives.

In the journal,
laicist ideology was investigated in the "government" subject and it
was described in terms of the consequence of the formation of the government,
individuals' security and division of labor among the society. Hence, it was
especially stressed that the government had no theological or metaphysical
meaning at all. As a consequence, the leader of the state did not have any
divine meanings, either. According to the authors of the journal, states and
societies also evolve by "natural laws" similar to organisms. As a
result, the government should operate based on rules determined by sociology
and should be secular.

            The journal took role in the
adoption of fundamental ideologies in Ottoman State that paved the way for a
new democratic, liberal and secular state, in which only the society had
control over. The journal not only influenced the structure of politics and
public life during İttihat ve Terakki Party, but also contributed to the
foundational ideologies of modern Republic of Turkey.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Secularism, Ulûm-i İktisâdiye ve İçtimâiye Journal, Positivism, Materialism, Liberalism

Kaynakça

• Ağaoğulları, Mehmet Ali-Köker, Levent, Tanrı Devletinden Kral Devlete, İstanbul: İmge Kitabevi Yayınları, 2008.
• Ağaoğulları, Mehmet Ali, Ulus-Devlet ya da Halkın Egemenliği, Ankara: İmge Kitabevi Yayınları, 2010.
• Ahmed Şuayıb, “Hürriyet-i Mezhebiye İslâmiyet ve Katolik Kilisesi”, Ulûm-i İktisâdiye ve İçtimâiye Mecmuası, 1/ 2 (2 Ocak 1324).
• ____________, “Hürriyet-i Mezhebiye, Hilâfet ve Saltanat 3”, Ulûm-i İktisâdiye ve İçtimâiye Mecmuası, 1 ( 28 Şubat 1324).
• ____________. “Fransa İhtilâl-i Kebîri”, Ulûm-i İktisâdiye ve İçtimâiye Mecmuası. 1. (Kânûn-ı evvel 1324).
• ____________, “Avamil-i İçtimaiye, Irk Nazariyesi”, Ulûm-i İktisâdiye ve İçtimâiye Mecmuası, 2, (30 Mart 1325).
• Akıncı, Abdulvahap, “Modern Ulus Devletlerin Doğuşu”, Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 34, (Aralık 2012).
• Akşin, Sina, Jön Türkler ve İttihat ve Terakki, 4. Baskı, Ankara: İmge Kitabevi, 2006.
• Arsel, İlhan, Teokratik Devlet Anlayışından Demokratik Devlet Anlayışına (Şeriat Devletinden Laik Cumhuriyete), İstanbul: 1993.
• Asaf Nef’î, “Mücâdele-i Hayâtiye ve Tekemmül-i Cemiyât”. Ulûm-i İktisâdiye ve İçtimâiye Mecmuası, 2/ 8 (Mayıs 1325).
• Barry, Norman P., Modern Siyaset Teorisi, 3. Baskı, çev. Mustafa Erdoğan-Yusuf Şahin, Ankara: Liberte Yayınları, 2012.
• Başgil, Ali Fuat, Din ve Laiklik, 10. Baskı, İstanbul: Kubbealtı Yayınları, 2011.
• Bedi Nuri, “Hikmet-i İçtimâiye”, Ulûm-i İktisâdiye ve İçtimâiye Mecmuası, 2/5 (1 Mayıs 1325).
• ___________, “Kabiliyet-i İçtimâiye”. Ulûm-i İktisâdiye ve İçtimâiye Mecmuası, 2/5 (1 Mayıs 1325).
• Berkes, Niyazi, Türkiye’de Çağdaşlaşma, İstanbul: Doğu-Batı Yayınları, İstanbul Matbaası, 1978.
• ___________, Teokrasi ve Laiklik, İstanbul: Adam Yayıncılık, 1984.
• Buzpınar, Tufan, Şit, “Sâtı el-Husrî”, DİA, 36, İstanbul: Türkiye Diyânet Vakfı Yayınları, 2009.
• Cevizci, Ahmet, Aydınlanma Felsefesi Tarihi, Bursa: Asa Yayınları, 2007.
• Çakıroğlu, Ekrem, Yaşamları ve Yapıtlarıyla Osmanlılar Ansiklopedisi, İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Kültür Sanat Yayınları, 1999.
• Demir, Hande Seher, “Klasik Dönem Osmanlı Devleti’nde Din-Devlet İlişkilerinin Laiklik, Sekülerizm, Teokrasi ve Din Devleti Sistemleri Kapsamında İncelenmesi”, Ankara Barosu Dergisi, 3 (2013).
• Demir, Remzi, “Subhi Edhem Bey’in “İlm-i Nebâtât Tarihi” I. Ulusal Veteriner Hekimliği Tarihi ve Meslekî Etik Sempozyumu Bildirileri, (30 Mart-1 Nisan 2006), ed. Abdullah Özen.
• Doktor Edhem Subhi, “Terbiye-i Akliye, Terbiye-i Akliye’de Usûl-i Umûmî”. Ulûm-i İktisâdiye ve İçtimâiye Mecmuası, 2/8 (1 Ağustos 1325).
• Dumont, Paul, Osmanlıcılık, Ulusçu Akımlar ve Masonluk, çev. A. Berktay. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2014.
• Ertit, Volkan, “Birbirinin Yerine Kullanılan İki Farklı Kavram: Sekülerleşme ve Laiklik”, Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi, 9/1 (2014).
• Fontana, Josep, Avrupa’nın Yeniden Yorumlanması, Avrupa’yı Kurmak, çev. Nurettin Elhüseyni, haz. Özden Arıkan. İstanbul: Afa Yayıncılık, 1995.
• Gişi, Erdal, “Laiklik Kavramının Kronolojik Evrimi”, The Journal of Europe-Middle East Social Science Studies 1/1 (July 2015): s. 1-13.
• Göze, Ayferi, Siyasal Düşünceler ve Yönetimler, 15. Baskı, İstanbul: Beta Yayınları, 2015.
• Hançerlioğlu, Orhan, Felsefe Ansiklopedisi Kavramlar ve Akımlar, 5. Cilt, 4. Baskı, İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 2012.
• _____________, Felsefe Ansiklopedisi Düşünürler Bölümü, 2. Cilt, 4. Baskı. Ankara: Remzi Kitabevi, 2012.
• Heywood, Andrew, Siyaset Teorisine Giriş, 5. Baskı, çev. Hızır Murat Köse, İstanbul: Küre Yayınları, 2012.
• Hof, Ulrich Im, Avrupa’da Aydınlanma, çev. Ş. Sunar, İstanbul: Özener Matbaası, 1995.
• Işık, İhsan, Türkiye Yazarlar Ansiklopedisi. 3. Cilt, 3. Baskı, Ankara: Elvan Yayınları, 2001.
• İçli, Gönül, Sosyolojiye Giriş, 6. Baskı, Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık, 2012.
• Kanar, Mehmet, (ed.). Ulûm-i İktisâdiye ve İçtimâiye Mecmuası.1/2/3, İstanbul: Doğu Kitabevi, 2015.
• Kansu, Aykut, 1908 Devrimi, 6. Baskı, çev. Ayda Erbal, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2011.
• Kapani, Münci, Politika Bilimine Giriş, 52. Baskı, Ankara: BB101 Yayınları, 2016.
• Karal, Enver Ziya, Osmanlı Tarihi Nizâm-ı Cedîd ve Tanzimat Devirleri (1789-1856), V. 7. Baskı, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1999.
• Karpat, Kemal, Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Elitler ve Din, İstanbul: Timaş Yayıncılık, 2009.
• Köker, Levent, Kral Devlet ya da Ölümlü Tanrı, Ankara: İmge Kitabevi Yayınları, 2010.
• Lewis, Bernard, Modern Türkiye’nin Doğuşu, çev. M. Kıratlı, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 2004.
• Mardin, Şerif, Yeni Osmanlı Düşüncesinin Doğuşu, çev. M. Türköne-F. Unan, İ. Erdoğan. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2003.
• ____________, Jön Türklerin Siyasî Fikirleri 1895-1908, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2006.
• ___________, Makaleler 2: Siyasal ve Sosyal Bilimler, 9. Baskı, der. M. Türköne-T. Önder. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2007.
• ___________, Türk Modernleşmesi Makaleler 4, 22. Baskı, der. Mümtaz’er Türköne- Tuncay Önder, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2013.
• Özbudun, Ergun, Türk Anayasa Hukuku, 9. Baskı, Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları, 2008.
• Parkinson, C. Northcote, Siyasal Düşüncenin Evrimi, 2. Baskı, İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 1984.
• Qutram, Dorinda, Aydınlanma, çev. Sevda Çalışkan-Hamit Çalışkan, Ankara: Dost Kitabevi, 2005.
• Reyhan, Cenk, “Jön Türk Hareketi Üzerine Kuramsal Bir Çerçeve”, Gazi Akademik Bakış, 1/ 2 (2008).
• Rıza Tevfik, “Nüfus Meselesi ve Ehemmiyet-i Siyâsiye ve İçtimâiyesi”, Ulûm-i İktisâdiye ve İçtimâiye Mecmuası. 1/1 (15 Kânûn-ı evvel 1324).
• ____________, “Hukûk-ı Esâsiyeye Medhâl”. Ulûm-i İktisâdiye ve İçtimâiye Mecmuası, 1/16 (1 Nisan 1324).
• ____________, “Tasnf-i Ulûm Bazı Mukaddemât-ı Felsefiye”. Ulûm-î İktisâdiye ve İçtimâiye Mecmuası, 1/3 (15 Şubat 1324).
• ____________, “Hürriyet İngiliz Hakîm-i Meşhûru Con Stuart Mill Hürriyeti Nasıl Anlıyor?”, Ulûm-i İktisâdiye ve İçtimâiye Mecmuası, 2/5 (1 Mayıs 1325).
• Salih Zeki, “Auguste Comte, Felsefesi”, Ulûm-i İktisâdiye ve İçtimâiye Mecmuası, 1/2 (Kânûn-ı sâni 1324).
• Sâtı, el Husri, “Uzviyetler ve Cemiyetler”, Ulûm-i İktisâdiye ve İçtimâiye Mecmuası, 2/8 (1 Ağustos 1325).
• ___________, “Mebâhis-i Rûhiye 1: Faâliyet-i Rûhiye ve Uzviye”, Ulûm-i İktisâdiye ve İçtimâiye Mecmuası, 3/9 (1 Eylül 1325).
• ___________, “Mebâhis-i Rûhiye: 4 İhtiyâr”, Ulûm-i İktisâdiye ve İçtimâiye Mecmuası, 3 (17 Kânûn-ı sâni 1325).
• Shaw, Stanford J.-Shaw, Ezel Kural, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ve Modern Türkiye, 2. Reform, Devrim ve Cumhuriyet: Modern Türkiye’nin Doğuşu, 1808-1975, çev. M. Harmancı, İstanbul: e Yayınları, 2000.
• Şenel, Alaeddin, Siyasal Düşünceler Tarihi Tarihöncesinde İlkçağda Ortaçağda ve Yeniçağda Toplum ve Siyasal Düşünüş, Ankara: Bilim ve Sanat Yayınları, 2004.
• Tanilli, Server, Uygarlık Tarihi, İstanbul: Adam Yayınları, 1999.
• Tanör, Bülent, Türkiye’de İnsan Hakları Sorunu (Hukuk-Ötesi Boyutlar), İstanbul: BDS Yayıncılık, 1991.
• ___________, Osmanlı-Türk Anayasal Gelişmeleri (1789-1980), 23. Baskı, İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2013.
• Taylor, Charles, Seküler Çağ, çev. Dost Körpe, İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2014.
• Toprak, Zafer, Türkiye’de Popülizm 1908-1923, İstanbul: Doğan Kitap, İstanbul 2013.
• ___________, “Psikolojiden Sosyoloji’ye Türkiye’de Durkheim Sosyolojisinin Doğuşu”, Toplumsal Tarih, 238 (2013).
• Tunaya, Tarık Zafer, Hürriyetin İlânı İkinci Meşrutiyet’in Siyasî Hayatına Bakışlar. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2004.
• ____________, Türkiye’nin Siyasî Hayatında Batılılaşma Hareketleri, İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2004.
• ____________, Türkiye’de Siyasal Gelişmeler (1876-1938), Kanun-ı Esasî ve Meşrutiyet Dönemi (1876-1918), 3. Baskı, İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2009.
• Uçman, Abdullah, “Ahmed Şuayıb”, DİA, C. 2. İstanbul: Ali Rıza Baskan Matbaası, 1989.
• _____________, “Rıza Tevfik Bölükbaşı”. DİA, C. 35. İstanbul: Türkiye Diyânet Vakfı Yayınları, 2008.
• Ünlü, Metin-Özcan, Ömer, 20. Yüzyıl Türk Edebiyatı 1900-1940, İstanbul: İnkılâp Yayınları, 2003.
• Vergin, Nur, Siyasetin Sosyolojisi Kavramlar, Tanımlar, Yaklaşımlar, 9. Baskı, İstanbul: Doğan Kitap, 2012.