Araştırma Makalesi

Çağdaş Eleştirel Kuramlar Bağlamında Laiklik Kavramına Bakış ve Türkiye’deki Evrimi

Cilt: 16 Sayı: 29 30 Eylül 2020
PDF İndir
EN TR

Evolution and Overview of the Concept of Laïcité in Turkey in the Context of Contemporary Critical Theories

Abstract

The conception of laïcité is born out of a specific historical and cultural context in Western world, and has been presented as an absolutely essential component of modernization. Contemporary social science theories, however, point out the limitations of this conception. In theory, laïcité involves the freedom of conscience and religion, but in practice, this has not been the case, and in many social and cultural instances the religion has been excluded from the public sphere. From a historical perspective, France has seen the most patronising and dogmatic implementation of laïcité. And it is French conception of laïcité which was taken as a model for modernization of Turkey. Consequently, without the slightest regard for the defining characteristics of Turkey, all the religious elements were excluded from the public sphere, and thus an artificial political and social sphere was constructed. But this political and social construction has spawned serious pathologies, and, through hegemonic state mechanisms, hampered the political representation of religious identity in Turkey. As a result, there have been many traumatic events: The Democrat Party was overthrown in a military coup in 1960; many political parties were banned through the decrees of the Turkish Supreme Court; and the Turkish military leadership terminated the civil government through a military memorandum on 28 February 1997. This study will first examine the historical and cultural development of the conception of laïcité, and then present several contemporary critical theories discussing laïcité. The following part of the article will analyse both the evolution of laïcité from the beginning of the early Turkish Republican era, and the emergence of a new period during the AK Party government. After a long political struggle, the AK Party has modernized, in line with the historical and socio-cultural references in Turkey, the conception of laïcité, which has long been used as a hegemonic tool by the established state mechanisms. And this struggle paved the way for a public and economic sphere open to pluralities and the Islamic identity.

Keywords

laïcité , France , Charles Taylor , Talal Asad , Craig Calhoun , Turkey , , republic , the AK Party

Kaynakça

  1. Akyüz, İ. (2016). Türkiye'de dışlayıcı laiklikten pasif laikliğe geçiş sürecinde başörtüsü yasağının kaldırılması. Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 11(7), 67-84.
  2. Arkoun, M. (1994). İslami bir bakış açısı içinde pozitivizm ve gelenek, kemalizm olayı. Cogito, 1, İstanbul: YKY.
  3. Asad, T. (1993). Genealogies of religion: Discipline and reasons of power in Christianity and Islam. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  4. Asad, T. (2003). Formation of the secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity. California: Stanford University Press.
  5. Arslan, N. (der.) (1990). Atatürk’ün söylev ve demeçleri. Cilt 1, Ankara: Türk İnkilap Tarihi Enstitüsü.
  6. Azak, U. (2019). Türkiye’de laiklik ve İslam. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
  7. Bekaroğlu, E. A. (2015). Post-Laik Türkiye?: AK Parti iktidarları ve güncellenen laiklik sözleşmesi. İnsan ve Toplum, 5(9), 102-122.
  8. Bora, T. (2018). Cereyanlar: Türkiye’de siyasî ideolojiler. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
  9. Bölükbaşı, M. (2012). Milli Görüş’ten muhafazakâr demokrasiye: Türkiye’de 28 Şubat süreci sonrası İslami Elitlerin dönüşümü. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(2), (166-187).
  10. Calhoun, J. C. (2011). Secularism, citizenship, and the public sphere, rethinking secularism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kaynak Göster

APA
Nebati, N. (2020). Çağdaş Eleştirel Kuramlar Bağlamında Laiklik Kavramına Bakış ve Türkiye’deki Evrimi. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 16(29), 2108-2141. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.792131