dergi

Recommendations

Info

TÜRKİYE’DE LAİKLİĞİN TARİHÎ DİNAMİKLERİ 169 — (1987) “Some notes on state and Islam in Turkey”, Studies on Turkish-Arab Relations II, 157-64. Hudson, M. C. (1980) “Islam and political development” John L. Esposito (der.), Islam and Development: Religion and Sociopolitical Change içinde, SUP, Syracuse, 1-24. Karal, E. Z. (1988) Selim III’ün Hat-tı Hümayunları-Nizam-ı Cedit-, 1789-1807, TTK, Ankara. — (der.) (1998) Atatürk’ten Düşünceler, ODTÜ, Ankara. Kili, S. (1969) Kemalism, Robert College, İstanbul. Köker, L. (1995) Modernleşme Kemalizm ve Demokrasi, İletişim, İstanbul. Lewis, B. (1962) The Emergence of Modern Turkey, Oxford UP, Londra. — (1987) History Remembered Recovered Invented, Touchstone, New York. — (1993) Islam and the West, Oxford UP, New York. Mardin, Ş. (1995) “İyiler ve kötüler” Mustafa Özel (der.), Tarih Risaleleri içinde, İz, İstanbul, 61-82. — (1996) Yeni Osmanlı Düşüncesinin Doğuşu, İletişim, İstanbul. Martin, D. (1993) A General Theory of Secularization, Gregg Revivals, Hampshire. Meriç, C. (1996) Umrandan Uygarlığa, İletişim, İstanbul. Merkl, P. H. (1972) Political Continuity and Change, Harper & Row, New York. Osmanoğlu, A. (1984) Babam Sultan Abdülhamid, Selçuk, İstanbul. Oy, A. (1989) Şiir Dünyamızda Atatürk, TDK, Ankara. Öğün, S. S. (1997) Politik Kültür Yazıları: Süreçler Kişiler, Asa, Bursa. Parla, T. (1993) Ziya Gökalp Kemalizm ve Türkiye’de Korporatizm, İletişim, İstanbul. Rosenthal, E. I. J. (1965) Islam in the Modern National State, CUP, Cambridge. Sarıbay, A. Y. (1995) Postmodernite Sivil Toplum ve İslâm, İletişim, İstanbul. — (1998) Siyaset Demokrasi ve Kimlik, Asa, Bursa. Simon, H. (1978) Ibn Khaldun’s Science of Human Culture, (çev.) Fuad Baali, S.M. Ashraf, Lahore. Şentürk, R. (1996) İslâm Dünyasında Modernleşme ve Toplumbilim, İz, İstanbul. Tarhanlı, İ. B. (1993) Müslüman Toplum Laik Devlet, Afa, İstanbul. Tunaya, T. Z. (1981) Devrim Hareketleri İçinde Atatürk ve Atatürkçülük, Turhan, Ankara. Ülken, H. Z. (1979) Türkiye’de Çağdaş Düşünce Tarihi, Ülken, İstanbul.
170 BEDRİ GENCER The historic dynamics of laicity in Turkey In this paper, it is pointed out that the concepts ‘nation’ and ‘state’ signify the underlying dynamics of the process of Turkish laicization. Unlike the Anglo- Saxon concept of secularization involving a transformation in weltanschauung, Turkish laicization means the official disestablishment of religion, i.e. the exclusion of Islam from state affairs. This process of laicization was rooted in two concepts that run parallel to that which took place in the West. Roughly stating, nation, as opposed to community, denotes a modern, fictitious political entity. At this point, the Haldunian conception of esprit de corps (‘asabiyah) provides us a conceptual tool to explain this transformation. But, in the modern era what defied the Haldunian conception of ‘asabiyah, so far as the quasi-nationalistic sentiment was concerned, was its novel ideological character. The nationalistic ideas of French Revolution affected the multi-ethnic empires like the Ottoman Empire. The replacing of ‘community’ by ‘nation’ was the main shift in the ideological map of the Young Turks. Turkey was forced inescapably to slant toward nationalism by stripping of its secondary loyalties determined by the historic zeal for Islamic cause. The Turkish nationalism displayed a critical difference from its Western counterpart: rather than a process of ‘nation-building’ based upon a cultural-civil-historic nationalism, the republican cadres led by Mustafa Kemal tried to form a new political identity, driven by the secular, Kantian ‘duty ethics’. In the Turkish case, state, rather than nation, was considered to be the main actor of laicization. In the course of the Western history, a modern, fictitious subject, corporate body called State, emerged as an apparatus of power against the Church. During this process the search for natural law as an embodiment of the ontological conception of justice had already disappeared. Accordingly, man-made, positive law that emerged as a result of the triumph of the state over the church appeared to be the ‘law of state’. This was the very case with the process of Turkish laicization, given the traditional top priority of the state. The Islamic law, being essentially a civil (quintessentially, belonging to the city) law, has nothing to do with such a corporate body as state. Given this fact, the justification for a drastic movement of laiciza-
Page 2 and 3:
84 BAHAR 2000 Toplum Bilim ve Ayşe
Page 4 and 5:
3 Bu sayıda... Toplum ve Bilim’i
Page 6 and 7:
kuruluş evresinde canla başla yü
Page 8 and 9:
7 G E L E C E K S A Y I L A R D A 8
Page 10 and 11:
ELIAS VE MEDENİYETİN ÖYKÜSÜ 9
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
‘UYGARLIK SÜRECİ’ KAVRAMI AÇ
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
37 Bitmemiş bir proje olarak beden
Page 40 and 41:
BİTMEMİŞ BİR PROJE OLARAK BEDEN
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
“Evde Taylorizm”: Türkiye Cumh
Page 54 and 55:
TÜRKİYE CUMHURİYETİ’NİN İLK
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
75 Norbert Elias’ın uygarlık ku
Page 78 and 79:
NORBERT ELIAS’IN UYGARLIK KURAMI:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
91 Uygarlık kuramları ve şiddet
Page 94 and 95:
UYGARLIK KURAMLARI VE ŞİDDET SORU
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
NORBERT ELIAS’IN İNSAN BİLİMLE
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121: NORBERT ELIAS’IN İNSAN BİLİMLE
Page 130 and 131: 129 “Tire”li kimlikler: Teori v
Page 132 and 133: TİRELİ KİMLİKLER: TEORİ VE YÖ
Page 152 and 153: 151 Türkiye’de laikliğin tarih
Page 154 and 155: TÜRKİYE’DE LAİKLİĞİN TARİH
Page 174 and 175: HAKKARİ’DE ORAMARÎ ÖRNEĞİ 17
Page 190 and 191: 189 Zaman: Modern ve postmodern* Ç
Page 192 and 193: ZAMAN: MODERN VE POSTMODERN 191 sun
Page 194 and 195: ZAMAN: MODERN VE POSTMODERN 193 son
Page 196 and 197: ZAMAN: MODERN VE POSTMODERN 195 le
Page 198 and 199: ZAMAN: MODERN VE POSTMODERN 197 İn
Page 200 and 201: ZAMAN: MODERN VE POSTMODERN 199 “
Page 202 and 203: ZAMAN: MODERN VE POSTMODERN 201 ede
Page 204 and 205: ZAMAN: MODERN VE POSTMODERN 203 ris
Page 206 and 207: ZAMAN: MODERN VE POSTMODERN 205 yı
Page 208 and 209: ZAMAN: MODERN VE POSTMODERN 207 eğ
Page 210 and 211: ZAMAN: MODERN VE POSTMODERN 209 tan
Page 212 and 213: ZAMAN: MODERN VE POSTMODERN 211 Glo
Page 214 and 215: ➧ Literatür Eleştirisi “İtti
Page 216 and 217: 215 son dönem Osmanlı siyasal gel
Page 218 and 219: 217 bi, 1993: 19). Dolayısıyla so
Page 220 and 221:
219 rak Abbasilerin giderek daha ge
Page 222 and 223:
221 set”le birlikte ama işlevsel
Page 224 and 225:
223 1992/1: 151), yani hiçbir siya
Page 226 and 227:
225 da “ısındırılmaya” baş
Page 228 and 229:
227 bun halifeliğin kaldırılmas
Page 230 and 231:
229 dern” bir yorum getirmekteydi
Page 232 and 233:
231 lunda bir nabız yoklama giriş
Page 234 and 235:
233 sürecinde destek olduğu bir b
Page 236 and 237:
235 Hint hilafet hareketi Halifeli
Page 238 and 239:
237 cut “özgür ve güçlü bir
Page 240 and 241:
239 man” (“Hindu” değil) ulu
Page 242 and 243:
241 iktidarını geniş bir zemin
Page 244 and 245:
243 Mısıroğlu, K. (1993) Geçmi
Page 246 and 247:
245 cal framework on how the instit
Page 248 and 249:
247 mak için şiddete başvurmakta
Page 250 and 251:
249 “anlamak” ve anlayarak “y
Page 252 and 253:
251 ğımsız, kitap gerçekten, Ya
Page 254 and 255:
253 sını, yani beş ayrı düzeyi
Page 256 and 257:
255 şıyordu. Devletlerin bu biçi
Page 258 and 259:
257 sındaki çatışmada yatar. Bu
Page 260 and 261:
259 naksız hale geldikçe, daha da
Page 262 and 263:
➟ ➟➟ ➟ İletişi / Değini
Page 264 and 265:
263 pozyumun üçüncü gününde s
Page 266 and 267:
265 Öte yandan Fatmagül Berktay,
Page 268 and 269:
267 anlam çıkaracağını anlayam
Page 270 and 271:
269 rın adeta ortak bölenini olu
Page 272:
271 rülür. Forester’a göre, m
show all

dergi

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?