Where did we go wrong until we worshipped power?

Some thinkers have compared societies to living organisms. In any case, this analogy is quite accurate in terms of the fact that societies are systems with a high level of complexity. Maintaining balance in highly complex systems requires subsystems. In societies, subsystems are maintained in equilibrium by determinants such as culture and morality, which are compatible with the general structure of the society to a certain extent. If these elements are disturbed, firstly the subsystem has difficulty in maintaining equilibrium, the level of complexity increases and the society is pushed to a threshold. At this new threshold, it is possible to reestablish equilibrium either by adapting to the emerging conditions or by evolving into a new order. The great revolutions in history, which have influenced the fate of nations, are examples of the formation of this new order. 

Culture is generally defined as "all material and immaterial values created by a human community in a certain process". However, sociologist Doğan Ergun makes a justified objection to this; culture cannot be material. Material things can only reflect culture. The culture of societies is subjected to various influences and changes over time. This change can be positive or negative. In addition, perceiving some traditions, which can be called diseases, as a part of culture and trying to protect them leads to deterioration in the culture of societies. In his book "Sick Societies" R.Edgerton discusses the effects of cultural maladaptation on social structure. 

The fact that behavioural patterns that can be called diseases become permanent in the social structure shows that all relations in society can be affected by this diseased structure. Doğan Cüceloğlu emphasises that it is very difficult to remain healthy in a sick structure and explains the vital importance of education in protecting and developing culture. Indeed, beliefs, value judgements and mental disorders kept alive under the name of tradition, which poison relations in the social sphere, lead to chronic deterioration in culture. Accepting what exists without questioning, evaluating and reasoning creates diseased structures that are passed on from generation to generation.

For societies to change, culture must change. Kurt Lewin, an important figure in social psychology, introduces the concept of "psychological field" and states that this concept is the basic dynamic that determines individual and group behaviour. The way to create change in group behaviour is to target group culture. When applied to the social sphere, it is not difficult to realise that this is not so easy. For this reason, the pioneering and revolutionary leaders of history are those who have seen that transformation can be achieved through revolutionary steps and have been able to take these steps. When considered in the context of transforming the social structure, it becomes clear how important Atatürk's revolutions are. 

In his book "Atatürk and Revolutions", Niyazi Berkes draws attention to the risk of leaders becoming the subject of religious worship if the path paved by historical leaders is not understood. Berkes emphasises that this approach would block the path of rational understanding and evaluation. In this sense, Mustafa Kemal is "a person who pushed back not only religious or mystical sanctity, but even worldly qualities such as caliphate, sultanate and kingdom." In other words, Atatürk's revolutions are revolutions of reason, science and modernisation. Moreover, in Atatürk's great revolutionary march, even many intellectuals infected by the chronic diseases of social culture criticised him. However, history has vindicated Atatürk. 

Every revolution must be supported by education and institutions, but this is not enough. Because it is not possible for the transformation to be accepted and internalised by the society in a short time. It is also necessary to fight against the power centres that oppose this change. Parasites fed by a chronically diseased cultural structure cannot be expected to prefer a society that progresses on the path of reason and science. In fact, what has happened after Atatürk until today is like a reflection of the power struggle between his revolutions and the counter-revolutionary mentality. Unfortunately, this power struggle has enabled the counter-revolutionary mentality to reach a great power due to weaknesses in education and institutional structures. In Reşat Nuri Güntekin's novel about the first years of the Republic, "Green Night", the teacher's unforgettable line is like a summary of many things: "The revolution did not happen in just a few years!"

In societies that cannot become an information society, there is a very strong belief in power and status. Instead of calling it cultural, I think it is appropriate to call it "diseased culture". Because the existence of belief in power and status stems from the lack of knowledge. In such societies, titles go beyond being a requirement of functional division of labour and turn into status. People tend to construct their relationship with society through these titles. Because no one in society considers institutional structures sufficient to protect themselves. Or they see relations as a field of power struggle and want to position themselves in a dominant position in relations. For this reason, all relations in society are realised between statuses rather than between individuals. 

In this case, the individual becomes obscured in society and authoritarian tendencies gain strength. No one questions/questions where the power of the administration stems from. It is as if the whole society is submissive to power. Civil society is passive and ineffective in the face of political society. Political society uses its power from the administration for the continuation of this order and consolidates its position by transforming institutions into a means of protecting its own interests.  Since individuals cannot establish relationships without status, the general level of peace and happiness in society is quite low. The whole society becomes part of a mechanism to protect the interests of a happy minority.  

As a reflection of the cultural disease, the whole society seems to have turned into a huge pyramid with an unshakable hierarchy of statuses. The legal order, institutional structures and the form of government have been constructed in such a way as to ensure the existence of this diseased structure. The basic assumption is that the one who has the status is powerful and one must submit to his/her power to rule. However, the relationship of obedience in management is very closely related to the structure of authority. For this reason, the authority model of a healthy cultural structure (as explained by Weber) is the legal-legal authority whose boundaries are drawn by rules and where statuses are only functionally important. 

Returning to the question in the title, we need to see when things started to go right, when the diseased culture started to heal, before we see where the error began. Atatürk's revolutions were first and foremost a cultural revolution that liberated human beings from servitude and transformed them into individuals. Whoever intends to abolish the power based on ignorance and faith is the potential focus of the counter-revolution. This power, which seeks to seize political society in order to realise what it wants, feeds on the relations established by the individual on the basis of status. It suppresses civil society and wants to easily control all relations. 

Unfortunately, it was after the death of Atatürk, our great revolutionary and leader, that the great social transformation (Atatürk's revolutions) in Turkey suffered its first tremors. From 1950 onwards, the counter-revolutionary mentality began to increase its power. Rather than a historical analysis, what I am trying to do in this article is to try to understand how social culture has been constructed in such a way that people worship power, how it has been rendered morbid, and how the consequences of this have determined the present day. Although there is a theoretical possibility that Turkey's economic conditions can be improved in a short period of time, it is much more difficult to expect changes in cultural conditions that will permanently improve all institutions (hence the economy). For this, it is necessary to be revolutionary like Atatürk and to raise generations that will embrace the revolutions that have been made, a process that will take decades. 

With respect and love...