Siyasette Dinin Rolü: Bir Analitik Kategori Olarak Toplumsal Kamusal Alan

Yıl 2021, , 143 - 161, 31.12.2021

Ravza Cakir

https://doi.org/10.35343/kosbed.923837

Öz

Siyaset teorisi alanında kamusal alana ilişkin mevcut cumhuriyetçi ve liberal teoriler, çoğunluğu Müslüman olan bağlamlar için normatif ve pratik anlamda yetersiz kalmaktadır. Jürgen Habermas gibi az sayıda seçkin teorisyen, kamusal alanda din tartışmalarını yeniden ele alarak, özel ile kamusal ve dini ile siyasi sınırlar arasındaki yapay tartışmaların genişlemesini mümkün kılmıştır. 2000'lerin ortalarından bu yana, Habermas 'post-sekülerizm', 'dini hoşgörü' ve 'dini bilincin modernizasyonu' gibi kavramları ortaya koymuş ve 'informal’ ve ‘kurumsal’ kamusal alan' ayrımının önemini dile getirmiştir. Bu makale dini kollektif yaşamın sivil toplum dernekleri tarafından organize edildiği bir siyasi kamusal alan biçimi olarak sosyal kamusal alan ile laik devletin ortak kurumsal çerçeveyi kontrol ettiği yer olan devlet kamusal alanı arasında analitik bir ayrım yapmakta ve bunu kuramsallaştırmaktadır. Böylece siyasi laiklik ve dinin kamusal alandaki varlığının uzlaştırılmasının demokratikleşmeye sağlayacağı katkıyı din ile kamusal alandaki ilişkiye daha sofistike bir bakış sunarak irdelemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kamusal alan, din, laiklik, siyaset teorisi, Jürgen Habermas

The Role of Religion in Politics: The Analytical Category of the Social Public Sphere

Öz

Within the realm of political theory, the existing republican and liberal theories of the public sphere have not been normatively and practically sufficient for Muslim-majority contexts. Few prominent scholars such as Jürgen Habermas have provided a revitalised approach to the discussions of religion in the public sphere, enabling an expansion of the artificial and controversial boundaries between the private and the public as well as the religious and the political. In his publications since the mid-2000s, Habermas has proposed the notions of ‘post-secularism,’ ‘religious tolerance,’ and the ‘modernization of religious consciousness’ and he significantly articulated new divisions for an ‘informal public sphere’ and an ‘institutional public sphere.’ In this article, I re-appropriate some of Habermas’ ideas to theorise about the analytically differentiated categories of social public sphere—a distinct form of a political public sphere where religious communal life is organised by civil society associations—and state public sphere—where the secular state controls the common institutional framework. The paper offers a more nuanced view of the relationship between religion and the public sphere as a way of reconciling political secularism and public religious presence that would help democratic consolidation in the Muslim world.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Public sphere, religion, secularism, political theory, Jürgen Habermas

Kaynakça

• An-Na‘im, A. A. (2000). ‘Islam, State and Politics: Separate but Interactive’. Brookings. Available at https://www.brookings.edu/wp content/uploads/2012/04/2007islamforum_an-naim.pdf [Accessed 1 February 2014].
• An-Na‘im, A. A. (2002b). Muslims Must Realize that There is Nothing Magical about the Concept of Human Rights, Interview with Asghar Ali Engineer. In F. A. Noor (ed.) New Voices of Islam. Leiden: ISIM.
• An-Na‘im, A. A. (2008). Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shariʻa. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
• An-Na‘im, A. A. (2009). A Theory of Islam, State and Society. In K. Vogt, L. Larsen, and C. Moe (eds.) New Directions in Islamic Thought: Exploring Reform and Muslim Tradition. London: I.B. Tauris.
• Bader, V. (2003a). ‘Taking Pluralism Seriously: Arguing for an Institutional Turn’. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 6(1), 3-22.
• Bader, V. (2003b). Democratic Institutional Pluralism and Cultural Diversity. In C. Harzig and D. Juteau (eds.) The Social Construction of Diversity: Recasting the Master Narrative of Industrial Nations. New York: Berghahn Books.
• Bader, V. (2007a). Secularism or Democracy? Associational Governance of Religious Diversity. Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
• Bader, V. (2009a) Legal Pluralism and Differentiated Morality: Shari'a in Ontario? In R. Grillo et al. (eds.) Legal Practice and Cultural Diversity. Surrey: Ashgate.
• Barzilai, G. (2004). Legal Categorizations and Religion: On Politics of Modernity, Practices, Faith, and Power. In S. Austin (ed.) The Blackwell Companion to Law and Society. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
• Casanova, J. (1994). Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Connolly, W. E. (1999). Why I Am Not a Secularist. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
• Connolly, W. E. (2005). Pluralism. Durham: Duke University Press.
• Cook, J., Long, N. J., and Moore, H. L. (2016). The State We're in: Reflecting on Democracy's Troubles. New York: Berghahn Books.
• Dallmayr, F. (2011). ‘Whither Democracy? Religion, Politics and Islam’. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 37(4), 437-448.
• Eickelman, D. F., and Salvatore, A. (2002). ‘The Public Sphere and Muslim Identities’. European Journal of Sociology, 43(1), 92-115.
• Esposito, J. L. (1992). The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Fadel, M. (2008). ‘The True, the Good and the Reasonable: The Theological and Ethical Roots of Public Reason in Islamic Law’. The Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 21(1), 5-69.
• Gellner, E (1994). From the ruins of the great contest: Civil society, nationalism and Islam. In: Encounters with Nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 170–181.
• Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
• Habermas, J. (1998). On the Pragmatics of Communication. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
• Habermas, J. (2003). ‘Faith and knowledge’. The Future of Human Nature, 101-115.
• Habermas, J. (2004). ‘Religious tolerance—the pacemaker for cultural rights’. Philosophy, 79(1), 5-18.
• Habermas, J. (2006) ‘Religion in the Public Sphere’. European Journal of Philosophy, 14: 1 25.
• Habermas, J. (2008). ‘Notes on post‐secular society’. New perspectives quarterly, 25(4), 17-29.
• Hashemi, N. (2011). ‘The Arab Revolution of 2011: Reflections on Religion and Politics’. Insight Turkey, 13(2), 15-21.
• Hirschkind, C. (2008). ‘Religious Difference and Democratic Pluralism: Some Recent Debates and Frameworks’. Temenos, 44(1), 67-82.
• Hirst, P. (1994). Associative Democracy: New Forms of Economic and Social Governance. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Hirst, P. (1997). From Statism to Pluralism: Democracy. Civil Society and Global Politics. London: University College London Press.
• Hirst, P. and V. M. Bader (2001) (eds.) Associative Democracy: The Real Third Way. London: Frank Cass
• Jessop, B. (1990). State Theory: Putting Capitalist States in Their Place. University Park: Penn State Press.
• Kramer, G. (1993). ‘Islamist Notions of Democracy’. Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP), 23(183), 2-8.
• Kukathas, C. (1992). ‘Are There Any Cultural Rights?’. Political theory, 20(1), 105-139.
• Kukathas, D. C. (2003). The Liberal Archipelago: A Theory of Diversity and Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lambert, G. (2016). Return Statements: The Return of Religion in Contemporary Philosophy. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Lubenow, J. A. (2012). ‘Public Sphere and Deliberative Democracy in Jürgen Habermas: Theorethical Model and Critical Discourses’. American Journal of Sociological Research, 2(4), 58-71.
• Maclure, J., and Taylor, C. (2011). Secularism and Freedom of Conscience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• March, A. F. (2011). Islam and Liberal Citizenship: The Search for an Overlapping Consensus. New York: Oxford University Press.
• McClure, J. A. (1997). ‘Post-secular culture: The return of religion in contemporary theory and Literature’. CrossCurrents, 332-347.
• Mégret, F. (2012). ‘Is There Ever a ‘Right to One's Own Law’? An Exploration of Possible Rights Foundations for Legal Pluralism’. Israel law review, 45(1), 3-34.
• Mookherjee, M (2001). ‘Justice as Provisionality: An Account of Contrastive Hard Cases’. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 4(3), 67-100.
• Mookherjee, M. (2009). Women’s Rights as Multicultural Claims: Reconfiguring Gender and Diversity in Political Philosophy. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Sachedina, A. (2006). The Role of Islam in the Public Square: Guidance or Governance? In M. A. Khan (ed.) Islamic Democratic Discourse: Theory, Debates, and Philosophical Perspectives. Lanham: Lexington Books.
• Sajoo, A. B. (2004). Civil Society in the Muslim World: Contemporary Perspectives. London: I.B. Tauris.
• Shachar, A. (2001). Multicultural Jurisdictions: Cultural Differences and Women’s Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Shachar, A. (2008). ‘Privatizing Diversity: A Cautionary Tale from Religious Arbitration in Family Law’. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 9, 573-587.
• Shachar, A. (2009). ‘Entangled: State, Religion, and the Family’. Harvard International Law Journal, 49, 135-142.
• Shils, E. (1997). The Virtue of Civility: Selected Essays on Liberalism, Tradition, and Civil Society. Indianapolis: Liberty fund. Stepan, A. C. (2000). ‘Religion, Democracy, and the Twin Tolerations’. Journal of Democracy, 11(4), 37-57.
• Talbi, M. (1995a). ‘Is Cultural and Religious Co-Existence Possible?’. Encounters: Journal of Inter-Cultural Perspectives, 1(2), 74-84.
• Talbi, M. (1995b). ‘Unavoidable Dialogue in a Pluralist World: A Personal Account’. Encounters: Journal of Inter-Cultural Perspectives, 1(1), 56-69.
• Taylor, C. (2011). Why We Need a Radical Redefinition of Secularism. In E. Mendieta and J. Van Antwerpen (eds.) Judith Butler, Jürgen Habermas, Charles Taylor, Cornel West: The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Taylor, C. (2014). How to Define Secularism. In. A Stepan and C. Taylor (eds.) Boundaries of Toleration. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Vallentyne, P., and van der Vossen, B. (2014). ‘Libertarianism’. In E. N. Zalta (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Availableat:https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/libertarianism/ [Accessed 15 July 2017]
• Volpi, F. (2004). ‘Pseudo-democracy in the Muslim World’. Third World Quarterly, 25(6), 1061-1078.
• Wiktorowicz, Q. (1999). ‘The Limits of Democracy in the Middle East: The Case of Jordan’. The Middle East Journal, 53(4), 606-620.