Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi
Yazarlar: Adem SAĞIR
Konular:Sosyal
Anahtar Kelimeler:Secularization,Conservatism,Volkan Ertit,Religion
Özet: As the discussion on conservatism intensifies, it appears that the discussions of secularization have also increased in relation to it. Undoubtedly, they also go parallel with the political agenda. Whether in the attitudes of those who experience concerns over the conservatism of Turkey or in the worries reflected in the claim that the society is being conservatized within a political discourse, it can be argued in both cases that the secularization is a central concept. This study reflects as the continuation of Volkan Ertit’s discussion entitled as “The Age of Concerned Conservatives / Turkey that Diverges from Religion” who was previously brought forward with his criticism. This article carries the concern of refuting the arguments laid down by Sağır in his earlier criticism against Volkan Ertit’s article published in your journal as “Metaphysical-Centered Secularization Concept Instead of Religion (Islam) Centered Secularization Concept” Because the data which the writer exerted in his defense was used upon the criticism of Sağır’s article entitled “A Prolegomena to the Age of Concerned Conservatives” Therefore, the main concern in this study pursued an aim of bringing a new conceptual discussion over the afore-mentioned article. In fact, the secularism discussions that Ertit mentioned reflected the historical and cultural accumulation of Turkish modernization over 200 years as well as European modernization over 300 years. Because his direct inclusion of metaphysical secularization into the process of historical and cultural memory reinforces this claim. Therefore, it is meaningful that Ertit’s re-introduces the accumulation in question over the concept of secularization and it is also worth discussing in terms of his re-introduction of the final context of Turkish modernization. However, the attempts to study the discussions on modernization that has a long historical past with a new conceptual separation through “religious secularization” and “metaphysical secularization” cast a shadow over the accumulation in question. In this sense, there is a necessity to order the points and methodological problems that were proven to be problematic in Ertit’s study.