Is it possible to look at the past and build the future?

In order to comment on the past, present and future, the field of interpretation must first be clearly defined. Individual interpretation, social interpretation, historical interpretation, scientific interpretation, belief systems...

We can make sociological determinations, consciously or unconsciously, by treating the past-future relationship as a social interpretation. But these determinations usually contain elements closer to reproach than sociological self-criticism. In other words, it is a generalized interpretation.

From time to time, we do not discuss Popper's historicism or Marx's historical materialism, which Popper criticized severely, but we express our concerns about the future by referring to the present time, that is, the "emotional confusion" of today's people, and mentioning that our connection with the past is not established properly.

My interpretation of social change and its impact on individuals will be based on the concept of "change". First, I present my findings:

- Change is a dynamic process.

- The speed of social changes is low.

- Change is a cumulative process.

- The individual generally reflects the characteristics and concerns of the period he/she is in, but is not free from them.

- We can only discuss the past and the present through "values" and "paradigms". 

- Predicting the future is only possible through the knowledge and values we have today. In this respect, anachronism is a mistake we constantly fall into. 

- The status quo is safe, it gives peace of mind, but it is actually an unsafe unrest that triggers change. 

Now let us reduce these observations to a more concrete level. In fact, for a better understanding, let's do this through a current debate. The famous Abdülhamit debate. Let us first draw the general framework: It is the late 19th century, Marx's time machine has started to work. The old world, which had forced its intellectual evolution, freed philosophy from the cyclical discussions of the problem of existence and started to discuss the theory of knowledge, was shaking itself up. Production mechanisms change with the supply of raw materials and mechanization. Consequently, the values of the agrarian society of farmers and soldiers begin to erode. New production techniques rapidly change the daily way of working and living. Everything and anything is questioned in the new life. Belief systems are being fiercely criticized and there are some surprisingly striking and even disturbing purely scientific and mechanistic interpretations. There are even those who propose a new religion (see Rousseau).

It is inevitable that the debates will have social effects. Cities are forming, trade is taking shape, the bourgeoisie is emerging. Power centers are shifting. Political powers are not as comfortable as before. The monarch is restless. His unquestioned sovereignty is being questioned, there are those who want to become partners. So where are we in this great unrest? For a long time we were not even aware of it. Selim's and Mahmut's personal efforts are not enough to capture the period. It is as if we are like Byzantium, which debated whether angels were male or female during the conquest of Istanbul. There are actually one or two struggles. Tarhuncu, Ziya Pasha, Mithat Pasha... Of course, in this situation, a radical change becomes inevitable according to some. If you can't manage the change yourself, you get caught in the flood.

Abdülhamit found himself in the middle of this process of change/destruction. Lost wars, bankrupt treasury, grumblings... He makes an effort in his own way. He is actually looking for a way out. We call it oppression, oppression, but Abdülhamit's reformist side is also strong. For example, he takes a hand in education. He tries to observe world balances. There are things he accepts and things he does not accept. In fact, he is aware and uneasy. Because the ground beneath him is shifting, he is losing his lands, which are indicators of property, one after another.

The question is; quo vadis? We call him an Islamist, but his ideological aspect is actually much more pragmatist than most sultans. But whatever he does is futile because the wheel of historical materialism is turning. The era of empires is about to end. Rousseau provoked it once. The French empire is falling, the British monarchy is being pacified. Abdülhamit does not have the material and mental power to resist this change. History has already made its judgment about empires. Likewise, let us watch the Ittihadists from the same perspective. The process that started with the Young Turks evolved into the Unionists. But there is a mistake; these men were soldiers or bureaucrats, whereas they should have been bourgeois. They suddenly became partners in power without intellectual maturity. The only thing they have in common with the bourgeois, the dynamics of social change in Europe, is their activism and revolutionism. Of course, their efforts are not enough. A great war and the inevitable end...

The successive fall of the Russian, Austro-Hungarian, German and Ottoman empires. Are we now going to debate whether Abdülhamit was right or the Unionists were right in this process? Both sides were looking for a "solution". But I cannot say that both sides were able to read the spirit of the time well.  In the end, with their rights and wrongs, I can say that both Abdülhamit and the Unionists were good patriots. Because they were looking for a way out and a solution...

Let's come closer. How well can we understand the Republic from an imperial point of view? Are we going to compare nation states and republics, the political apparatus of the new order, with empires? This is exactly what I call anachronism. A paradigm shift is necessary if we are to rationally question a new order. In fact, Atatürk and the Republic are the children of the unrest and pain experienced since the Tanzimat. Mahmut II was a revolutionary in this respect. M. Kemal is a great activist and catalyst.

So what is the position of the individual while these transformations and changes are taking place? He doesn't care much. Sometimes he is a soldier of the imperial army on distant fronts, sometimes a peasant in the grip of deep poverty and destitution, sometimes an unconscious citizen trying to defend the status quo that oppresses him in the crowd, and most of the time an orphan, an orphaned immigrant...

Conclusion; there is a lot to talk about, but we should not let our hair down. I find any discussion on values meaningful, but everyone can rest assured that there are no lost generations, no unconscious crowds who have forgotten their past. On the contrary, there are citizens who cling more tightly to the concept of homeland that developed with the Republic. 

Methods and thoughts may differ, my truth may not be your truth. Time will show what and who is right. Our task is to be able to discuss in tolerance. Our generation is a bit troubled because we grew up in a cold war paradigm. Good and bad, black and white, east and west, individual and society, forbidden and free...

Dualism permeates everything. This makes us ruthless. In this ruthlessness, I take refuge in two universal values: tolerance for differences and freedom of expression...