Turkish Sociology in a Sociology of Knowledge Perspective: the Double-Bind of Survival/Identity
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TURKISH SOCIOLOGY IN A SOCIOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE PERSPECTIVE: THE DOUBLE-BIND OF SURVIVAL/IDENTITY A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY BY ANIL MÜHÜRDAROĞLU IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY FEBRUARY 2014 Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences Prof. Dr. Meliha Altunışık Director I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Prof. Dr. Ayşe Saktanber Head of Department This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ceylan Tokluoğlu Supervisor Examining Committee Members Prof. Dr. Elisabeth Özdalga (Bilkent, POLS) Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ceylan Tokluoğlu (METU, SOC) Prof. Dr. Nur Betül Çelik (AU, JRN) Assist. Prof. Dr. Selçuk Dursun (METU, HIST) Assist. Prof. Dr. Çağatay Topal (METU, SOC) I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work. Name, Last name : Anıl Mühürdaroğlu Signature : iii ABSTRACT TURKISH SOCIOLOGY IN A SOCIOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE PERSPECTIVE: THE DOUBLE-BIND OF SURVIVAL/IDENTITY Mühürdaroğlu, Anıl PhD., Department of Sociology Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ceylan Tokluoğlu February 2014, 207 pages Ottoman-Turkish modernization discourse is structured on the bases of a double-bind between survival and identity which had emerged as a result of the belief that a break had taken place in the Ottoman Empire in the unity between the methods of governing and the qualities with which Ottomans defined themselves. Debates on the disruption of this unity had been conducted in a period when linear conception of history became the predominant framework for understanding historical processes. As a result, categories of survival and identity were regarded as two dichotomous terms which were discussed with reference to other dichotomies like East and West or traditional and modern. Sociology became a popular field of knowledge in the late Ottoman and early republican period and employed by intellectuals with the intention of finding solutions to the problems which emanate from these dichotomies. Postwar Turkish sociology continued to deal with the same question. In this period, sociology in Turkey was divided into two groups as structure- and culture-oriented sociologies. The former tried to tackle the survival/identity double-bind by diminishing the category of identity into a dependent variable and formulated a scheme of modernization on the bases of a future-oriented and cosmopolitan identity. The latter preferred to connect the fate of the intention of preserving the traditional qualities of iv the society to the success of the modernization process and turned the struggle for survival into a project for the restoration of cultural identity. This study will analyze these two schools which set the main course of modernization debates in Turkish sociology. Keywords: Ottoman-Turkish modernization, national sociologies, uses of sociology, sociology of knowledge, discourse analysis v ÖZ BİLGİ SOSYOLOJİSİ PERSPEKTİFİNDEN TÜRK SOSYOLOJİSİ: HAYATTA KALMA/KİMLİK ÇİFTE AÇMAZI Mühürdaroğlu, Anıl Doktora., Sosyoloji Bölümü Tez Yöneticisi: Doç. Dr. Ceylan Tokluoğlu Şubat 2014, 207 sayfa Osmanlı-Türk modernleşmesi söylemi, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda devlet yönetme yöntemleri ile Osmanlılar’ın kendilerini tanımlamakta kullandıkları nitelikler arasındaki birliktelikte meydana geldiğine inanılan bir kırılmadan dolayı, hayatta kalma ve kimlik arasındaki bir ikili açmaz üzerine yapılanmıştır. Bu birliktelikteki kırılma ile ilgili tartışmalar, tarihsel süreçlerin anlaşılması konusunda çizgisel tarih anlayışının hakim olduğu bir dönemde yürütülmüştür. Bunun sonucu olarak, hayatta kalma ve kimlik kategorileri, Doğu-Batı veya geleneksel-modern gibi ikiliklere referansla karşıt terimler olarak ele alınmıştır. Sosyoloji geç Osmanlı ve erken cumhuriyet döneminde popular bir bilgi alanı haline gelmiştir ve entellektüeller tarafından bu ikiliklerin doğurduğu sorunlara çözümler bulmak amacıyla kullanılmıştır. Savaş-sonrası Türk sosyolojisi aynı sorunla uğraşmaya devam etmiştir. Bu dönemde Türkiye’de sosyoloji yapı- ve kültür-yönelimli sosyolojiler olarak ikiye ayrılmıştır. Bunlardan birincisi, hayatta kalma/kimlik ikili karşıtlığını, kimlik kategorisini bir bağımlı değişkene indirgemek ve modernleşmeyi gelecek- yönelimli ve kozmopolit bir kimlik üzerine inşa etmek suretiyle aşmaya çalışmıştır. İkinci okul ise toplumun geleneksel niteliklerini koruma hedefinin kaderini modernleşme sürecinin başarısına bağlamayı tercih etmiş ve hayatta kalma vi mücadelesini kültürel kimliğin ihyası projesi haline getirmiştir. Bu çalışma, Türk sosyolojisinde modernleşme tartışmalarının gidişatını belirleyen bu iki okulu analiz etmektedir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Osmanlı-Türk modernleşmesi, ulusal sosyolojiler, sosyolojinin kullanımları, bilgi sosyolojisi, söylem analizi vii To My Wife viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I should primarily express my gratitude to my thesis supervisor Ceylan Tokluoğlu for her never-ending belief and support in my studies not just during the preparation of this thesis, but throughout my entire doctoral study. In addition, I am deeply grateful to Elizabeth Özdalga, Nur Betül Çelik, Çağatay Topal and Selçuk Dursun who patiently tried to improve my study in our long meetings. I am also indebted to Barış Mücen who spent lots of time on every draft of this text and shared his valuable ideas with me throughout this tiresome process. Lastly, I would like to thank Mesut Yeğen for his guidance in the early phases of this thesis. Surely, none of this would be possible without my family whose unconditional love and support provided me with a comfortable zone in which I could pursuit my ambitions. I must also be quite lucky to have many friends who supported and encouraged me in different ways. I am grateful to Okay Açıl, Ebru Arıcan, Ekrem Ayalp, Cem Ceyhan, Emrah Çakçak, Özgür Çetinkaya, Işık Demirakın, Vahap Karakuş, Alaaddin Oğuz, Uğur Öymez, Anıl Tay Özbek, Ersoy Özbek, Melike, Özbek, Yalkın Romano, Çiğdem Sağır, Suzan Saçı, Doğan Savran, Serhat Toker, Gökhan Topçu, Fırat Uysal, Özge Uysal, Ertan Varlı and Şükrü Yalçınkaya for completing various departments of my life. It does not make much sense to thank my wife at this point. Meeting with her changed the order of things for me and set new conditions for assessing life, universe and everything. I cannot help but feel like somehow, everything that had happened thus far was and that will happen in the future are going to be of her doing. ix TABLE OF CONTENTS PLAGIARISM………………………………………………………………………………...iii ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………...…iv ÖZ…………………………………………………………………………………………..…vi DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………………...viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………...……ix TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………….....x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 2 THE RISE OF SOCIOLOGY IN THE WEST .................................................................. 18 2.1 Social and Political Background of a Semantic Shift ................................................. 19 2.1.1 Centralization of Power and the Crystallization of Society ................................. 21 2.1.2 Commercial Society and the Question of Order .................................................. 23 2.1.3 Putting the Name of it .......................................................................................... 26 2.2 Institutionalization of Sociology and National Traditions: ......................................... 29 3 STRUCTURATION OF OTTOMAN-TURKISH MODERNIZATION DISCOURSE ... 39 3.1 Reading the Nineteenth-Century Reforms .................................................................. 42 3.2 Locating the Intellectuals ............................................................................................ 46 3.3 Convergence of History and Discourse ....................................................................... 50 3.4 Technologies of Social Reform ................................................................................... 54 4 SOCIOLOGICAL TURN IN THE OTTOMAN-TURKISH MODERNIZATION DISCOURSE ............................................................................................................................ 62 4.1 Sociology at the Turn of the Century .......................................................................... 63 4.2 Facing with the Idea of Evolution ............................................................................... 65 4.2.1 Society as an Obstacle for Change ....................................................................... 66 4.2.2 Society as the Source of Change .......................................................................... 71 4.3 Ziya Gökalp: An Attempt to Eliminate Duality .......................................................... 74 4.3.1 Kultur and Civilization ......................................................................................... 76 4.3.2 Mechanisms or Politics of Change ....................................................................... 84 4.4