Locality and Nationality

Dear previous Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, at the meeting of the wise, said that the “solution project is domestic and national”. Then, he emphasized that it is necessary to envision the "Islam of Istanbul" against the mentality of terrorist organizations such as ISIS. Especially when I read the 2nd Emphasis, I remembered what was wanted to be done with the project of "Anatolian and/or Turkish Islam" during the February 28 process. In the face of the possibility that this vision of our Prime Minister, whom I admire as an academic, was broken or suffered at that time, I wanted to remind you about the recent period. Because the struggle is primarily based on concepts. Since the Concept is the mental representation of an object/phenomenon, it is always possible to say that these are empty and meaningless, in accordance with the nominalist doctrine. You can realistically emphasize that this is the reality in the outside world, but if we remember that the Renaissance and reform movements were given over these concepts in the so-called medieval period of the history of philosophy, it is necessary to try to create a conceptualization of our own (conceptual realism inspired by Farabi). Although persuasion and perception operations warn us in George Orwell's counter-utopia 1984, we see how the concepts are turned upside down. In this context, I mentioned the possibility of the last term Khorasan being reversed. As a partial contribution to the fact that the same process does not have domestic and national concepts, in the February 28 period, first Tomorrow in Turkey; I felt the need to re-share the article titled “A Key Concept in Creating a National Identity: Locality”, which I published in the journals named Hür Future (09.01.2004).

Many civilizations have come and gone in the history of thought, and an important part of them has been shaped in the Mesopotamia-Anatolian cultural basin. The point that makes a civilization different, original and specific from the others lies in the difference between benefiting from other perspectives of thinkers and being a "dealer". There cannot be a civilization that is isolated from each other and has never been affected. As a matter of fact, Islam interacted with the cultural data of Persia and Byzantium (Greek-Jewish), the two great civilizations of its period; but he established a distinctive civilization, and soon began to transform other civilizations.

In addition, under the umbrella of Islamic civilization, the ideas that dominate the basic/domestic and foreign resources primarily sought solutions to the problems of the political-cultural and geographical basin in which they grew up, and as a result, Anatolian Islam and Iran, Arabia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, North Africa. It becomes more important to consider the degree of originality and specificity if we say that there is a difference between being Muslim. This is natural because it is not possible to idealize and universalize the solution proposal produced anywhere as "objective reality". Because of the nature of humanity, every experience will be different. What gives this difference, in our opinion, is that the domestic foundations are different.

In other words, thinkers have one foot on their own country and their problems; the other pillar is on the data of the entire history of thought, the fact that he is sometimes in exile outside his country, either willingly or by necessity, does not change this. The point to be noted here is that scholars have the premises of their own style/paradigm, and when there are contradictions between these premises and the real-political situation, instead of a shift in consciousness, a paradigm shift, they produce temporary hypotheses and constantly try to reinterpret them to their own premises.

Problem

The problem that arises at this point is this: This original and specific work; that is, its locality is an illusion; The Turkish/Anatolian Islam thesis is a trap; therefore, what do the efforts to present it as a break from the Islamic world mean? This issue is very important. Islamic scholars who are very active in today's Islamic world and who grew up in the same or different regions; Instead of paying attention to their methods, they were rapidly consumed in Turkey by prioritizing the local solutions they produced to the problems they experienced; The natural result of this has been artificial polarizations in our country, such as traditionalist-modernist, fundamentalist-liberal.

However, if the methods of Islamic thinkers were prioritized; The influence of the cultural and political basin in which he grew up was clearly visible. The political-geographical-cultural basin I live in; that is, when he realized that he did not say anything directly about the problems of Anatolia; the necessity of transforming their thoughts becomes apparent. For example, Nurettin Topçu, who has a highly qualified doctorate in philosophy in France, begins to directly address me and the problems I am experiencing when he becomes acquainted with the domestic and spiritual dynamics of Turkey. If we give an example from classical Islamic thought; Does my preference for M. Hamdi Yazır and his tafsir show that I ignore other commentators and their works? Otherwise, it can be said that Yazır derives his uniqueness from the fact that he is a "local philosopher and commentator" who sensitively focuses on innovation (tecdid) and believes that this will be achieved not by Europeanization but by melting the European mentality within him and by our own values.

does it mean; of course the second. In short, I do not see Yazır and Topçu as "native", reject their other thinkers; therefore, it does not mean that I am alienated from the cultural universe of Islam.

This choice is very important, because in this thinking, our indigenous values ​​that ensure our cultural continuity are functional, as well as the reinterpretation and internalization of humanity's accumulation. This means the reproduction of the modern data of humanity in the historical and social process of each Muslim country, which is now original, belongs to it.

The Term of Indigenousness

Prioritizing indigenousness does not mean that we ignore the effort to find solutions (universality) to the problems of people living in different historical time periods and different geographies by reading the legal and moral background of the indigenous and local values ​​of a particular historical geography. On the contrary, just as Mevlana said, one foot is in Anatolia and the other foot is in the world (and in his thought) like a compass. In other words, being local is the first step to being universal. Finding answers to the concrete problems of this country will only be possible by reading domestic references in the light of real economic-political data, not with the ideas of dealers that apply the prescriptions of the international colonial devices exactly. Otherwise, we may face the 3rd Tanzimat and the new general sense, and we are even about to stay.

In the face of problems with such intricate historical dimensions, "the existence of new focuses emphasizing that the word does not run out and hopes are not extinguished and that we can look at the 'Tomorrow' with hope" shows that indigenousness is possible. Moreover, the possibility of readings based on Anatolian/Ottoman-Turkey, Nationalist-conservative or Marxist tradition; The fact that there are those who defend this from the left-Kemalist or Kemalist sections increases hope and hope.

For example, according to Atilla İlhan, who makes evaluations on Turkey's problems, the problem is as follows:

“While the Republican Turks were going to find and develop their identity within the national (secular and democratic) cultural mix, they were eager either for Western imitation or as a reaction to religious reaction. However, if he develops a good sense of homeland and history, Turkish intellectuals can get rid of the dilemma of progressiveness/reactionaryism, right-wing/leftism, which is a candidate to be our disaster in the final analysis. For this, our intellectuals need to create a national and contemporary culture based on our classical Seljuk/Ottoman culture, otherwise transfer cultures will lead to our alienation. will increase. “ (A. İlhan, National Culture War. Istanbul.1968, p.148-149)

“Nativeness” in Political Discourse

Although there is a possibility that it will be interpreted against the democracy that everyone vomits as a political discourse, I have to say this: It is clear that imitating modern (Western) democracies, presented as a ready-made and very elegantly packaged package, does not (and cannot) democratize us in the final analysis. Those who have reviewed the history of political thought since antiquity, in this context, "Which democracy?" will he ask the question?

When we think about the Ottoman-Turkish transition process, we have a democracy/parliamentary tradition of approximately 150 years and a multi-party democracy experience of more than 40 years. In this experience, when we look at our basic principles that give the Anatolian people their personality and identity, it is obvious that we have not been able to progress in this democratization process. All projects that disable this original and specific quality of a nation, especially like the Turks, which has been identified with Islam for many years, are bound to fail. As a matter of fact, this has been tried gradually since the Tanzimat, but no result was obtained, so there is no point in dwelling on it much here. But when we think about the determining principle (Islam), democratic principles, which are considered as a set of rights, will emerge categorically.

In other words, we have to make a new interpretation of the basic principles of Islam, taking into account the other accumulations of humanity, in its own historical-social process. “The fragmented nature of Islamic society in the modern world has also revealed the need to adapt the basic principles of Islam to the diversity of local conditions.” (Norman Barry, “Civil Society, Religion and Islam”, Liberal Thought, no.12, Fall.1998, p.89) Although it reminds of Hegel's dialectical method, at the end of this process, the basic principles of Islam; that is, new syntheses that will universalize the local (Anatolian-centered) interpretations of the main principles of indigenousness will be reached.

We can contribute to the accumulation of humanity with this indigenous and local original interpretation. Moreover, the fact that this interpretation/synthesis takes the form of a "thesis" in the final sense and brings the obligation to produce new interpretations will make our thinking process critical and keep the possibility of correcting our mistakes on the agenda. And this renders the explanations/excuses of "What should we do, these are your general principles, but only this much democracy is enough for my society".

As a matter of fact, Nuray Mert makes similar observations as a way of rethinking "Islam and Democracy" while determining the political discourse in Turkey.

According to him, instead of defining democracy completely outside the socio-historical context and with a shallow abstraction, abstract democratic principles should be translated into the socio-historical context of Turkey.

Saying that he specifically uses the term "translation" instead of the appropriate term here, Mert wants to avoid the danger of "democracy in our view". The important thing, he says, is that the democratic style should be reproduced within the socio-historical conditions of Turkey, by staying true to its universal claims. According to Mert, in this way, we can leave the priority of giving the appearance of democracy to the development of a truly democratic style. (Nuray Mert, “Islam and Democracy” A Wolf's Tale, Contract, Monthly Journal of Thought and Politics, year.1.sy.2.1997, p.17)

The Criterion Differentiating the Understanding of Indigenity from Relativism and Introversion

At this point, the "universal criterion" that prevents relativism and introversion is "communicative rationality". The content of a new concept of political development, the process of realizing one's own potentials as a free and rational individual and in this sense, the process of being a rational being will be determined within its own historicity/locality. However, this determination should be based on principles that allow interpretation and criticism in terms of rationalization and democratization standards, while accepting that every political and therefore culture-dependent social formation is unique in itself. (Levent Köker, Two Different Politics, (Positivism and Critical Theory in Terms of Information Theory-Political Science Relations), Ayrıntı Pub. İstanbul.1990, p.81-82)

Departure Point: “Indigenousness of Culture”

In this context, instead of a total understanding that tries to unite all cultures, it is necessary to seek other perspectives in order to preserve differences and try to provide respect for them without being introverted. At this point, it is necessary to dwell on the intercultural interaction and the resulting transformation; because cultures do not differ among themselves in the same way and at the same level.

In the twentieth century, positivist/universalist tendencies in social sciences began to be replaced by relativist/relativist perspectives, and modernity in the Western sense was severely criticized. The locality of cultures means talking about a new sensibility on this basis; that is, to talk about the dominance of cultures produced by local minds instead of a universal Western mind that determines everything. It is a well-known fact that this has brought many changes in the world, especially in political discourse.

Conclusion

It is possible to say that the indigenousness of cultures and diversity do not actually pose a possible threat to our political and cultural integrity, on the contrary, our unity and togetherness constitute patterns like an original/native rug. So, considering that cultures have designs/models of universality that compete with each other, we can provide a tradition of thought, a common past and a common future ideal to the individuals and groups that make up the society, by emphasizing the intercultural interaction and the resulting transformation.

Maybe this way we can establish the differences without turning them into outliers. In the final analysis, we can even reach the threshold of cultural exchanges that feed the differences, which destroys the existing difference without turning it into anomaly.