5.6. GÜLEN COMMUNITY DISCOURSE BETWEEN 1996 AND 1999

 5.6. GÜLEN COMMUNITY DISCOURSE BETWEEN 1996 AND 1999
5.6.1. Topics
Between 1996 and 1999, the theme that dominated Sızıntı was the contrast between self and other, pointing to the role of Sızıntı in the construction of identities within the GC. The most common mechanism of identity construction was the formulation of the “other” as a homogenous entity. Generally, the “other” in this context referred to the Westernized masses in Turkey who internalized values of materialism and positivism.419 At other times, the other was the “West,” characterized as a single actor.420 After February 28th 1997, when the so-called “post-modern” military intervention took place, there was an increase in the efforts by the GC to differentiate itself from other Islamic actors. Around this time, in two different articles, various Islamist actors were also constructed as “the other.”421

Between 1996 and 1999, one of the most commonly covered topics was the difference between science (bilim) and ilim, a combination of science and religion. The conceptualization of matter and meaning (a combination of morality, religion and culture) as two sides of reality undergirded many discussions of education, western culture, and capitalism. The topic of education was covered by the journal at an increasing rate from 1996 to 1999, parallel to the rise in the educational activities of the community.422 Other topics that were covered a few times were gender differences, social change, the relationship between individual and society, and what it means to be “a man of action.”423

5.6.2. Nomination
In Sızıntı, the self was defined as the constitution of a person during his/her creation. Although the authors emphasize that every person is created in a different way, they also drew attention to the commonalities among their readers, as the most commonly used strategy for discursive construction of social actors is collectivization.424 Between 1996 and 1999, collectivization was achieved through the frequent use of the pronoun “we” and possessive adjective “our.” “We as a nation”, “our country”, “our people”, “our history”, “our customs,” “Muslim Turkish society,” “Muslims” were among the commonly used phrases to describe the self.425 Gülen described the ideal Community follower as a “person of will power” (irade insani), “person of ideals”426 (ideal insanı) “person of action” (aksiyon insani) and “golden generation” (altın nesil).427

Descriptions of the self almost always involved long descriptions of the other. The “other” was mostly an abstract social actor and, except for the West, there was no clear nomination for it. Instead of naming the “other,” partitives such as “a group of” or indefinite adjectives such as “some,” “many,” or “certain” were used. This way of describing an actor is what Van Leeuwen calls “generalization,”428 and it serves to maintain the ambiguity of the “other’s” identity. Islamic communities in general and the GC in particular have used generalizations in their discourse to avoid open confrontation with powerful secular actors. In Sızıntı one of the clearly identified social actors constructed as a homogenous other was the “West.”429 Another clearly identified social actor was the “Western media.”430 The reader can infer that this term refers to media owned by secular, Westernized groups in Turkey. Social actors in Sızıntı were also constructed in terms of their relations to one another, or through the discursive tool called relationalization. “Elites” and “society/people” (halk) were distinguished from one another as more or less homogenous actors who have a repressor-repressed relationship.431 The construction of the elite as an actor outside (different from) the society or the people both resulted from and reinforced the view that the former is detached from the latter’s values and norms. This discourse element echoed the dominant center-periphery discourse of the mid to late 1990s that was discussed in Chapter 3.

Social actors who were absent in the journal articles are as important as the social actors who were represented. In Van Leeuwen’s categorization of discursive tools, the linguistic de-emphasizing of an actor without complete lack of reference to it is referred to as “backgrounding.”432 In Sızıntı between 1996 and 1999 women were backgrounded. There was only one article in three years about gender differences and very few other references to women are made. Nor were political parties, other religious groups, various actors of civil society, such as workers or businessmen associations, represented by nomination.

5.6.3. Predication
a. Self and Other
The predication of the “other” usually involved explicit comparisons between the golden generation and today’s generations. The two social actors were constructed as complete opposites of one another. (See Table 2) In Sızıntı, explicit predicates regarding community followers were as follows: “(They) will always live, think and talk in a simple way.... In their wording styles, they will never imitate European ways and they will voice their thoughts with their own instruments (meaning language instruments)…. The deeper their sincerity is, the more closed they will be to considerations other than Hizmet…. As people from the society (meaning non-elites) they will sit, stand up, talk and express their feelings similar to common people.”433 Those who perform Hizmet are also described as respectful, elegant, considerate, people with glittering eyes and pleasant faces.434 They possess a richness of feelings, thoughts, sensations and logic. As a response to everyone else’s display of animosity, hatred, harshness and crudeness in every chance they get, they (the followers) act with clemency and tolerant.435

Members of the community were referred to as people of ideals and people of will power, who have the determination to give to the world the balance and stability they have achieved in their souls. “Person of action,” “person of ideals” and “person of will power” construct an active person who exercises his/her will to achieve his/her ideas. A “person of ideals” was also a gendered construct, for it was further described using the phrase “babayiğit” in Turkish, which means a brave, fearless and strong person, but which contains the word father (baba), thus implying that the brave person is a man. Gülen described the “person of ideals” as “a brave man (babayiğit) with will power made of steel.”436 The idea of balance and stability of the soul as the source of balance and stability in the world shows that in the GC discourse latter half of the 1990s, individuals’ character traits and behaviors have a significant role in their social and political environment.

In the lead article in the March 1997 issue of Sızıntı Gülen described the characteristics of “today’s generations.” In contrast to the golden generation, today’s generations were referred to as “a group of banal materialists,” “those small people,” “materialists who try to seem like intellectuals,” “these corpses without souls….”437 Emphasis on materialism was a continuation of the 19th century Islamist discourses’ criticism of Westernization and the materialism associated with it. Today’s generations are referred to as “a circle that sanctifies progressivism, Westernism and enlightenment.” “Their behaviors are ‘alafranga’ (imitation of European ways) and artificial ….” These generations have learnt about the passion for money, fame, hypocrisy and egoism. They find their consolation in frenzy, delirium and destruction.438 “Today’s generations” were also referred to as “anarchists,”439 a term very frequently used after the 1980 coup to refer to the communist organizations of the 1970s. The political polarization between Islamist actors and secular actors in Turkey in the latter half of the 1990s was reflected in the polarization between the materialist individual and religious individual in the GC’s construction of self and other.

- In contrast to the golden generation, today’s generations are described as without horizons, ideals, past or future.
- In contrast to the golden generation that is characterized by rationality, “today’s generations are emotional and filled with deliriums, craziness, harshness and destructiveness. They are childish.
- In contrast to those filled with life and energy, this is a group of frail and lethargic souls.
- The disbelief (in God), lack of perseverance, and indecisiveness are in contrast to “our own morality.”
- In contrast to the person of will power, their main characteristics are being without spirituality, irresponsible, without any objectives, superficial, myopic, empty inside. Their point of view is crooked. Their ideas are weak, and their discourses are European.440

b. Old Social Order versus New Social Order
The Westernization process began more or less in the 19th century, intensified with Kemalist reforms and continues today. In Sızıntı authors used the phrase “last few centuries” to refer to this process. On occasion “the past” was specified as being three hundred years ago.441 The reader understands that “a few centuries ago” referred to the beginning of ideas of Westernization in the Ottoman Empire, concomitant with the decline of its power. Similar to the construction of the self and the other, there were sharp contrasts between the social order in the past and “social order in the last few centuries.” This period was viewed as a period in which humanity as a whole suffered from selfishness, individualism, utilitarianism, racism and egoism.442 The most common criticism of this period was related to the change in moral values, especially family values and the abandonment of medreses, shrines and men of religion. This was a time when our (Turkish) nation lived in distress, having lost its place in the international arena.443

The social order of the last few centuries was contrasted with the previous social order, which was idealized.444 “The past in our memories, is always new/young, always glittering and always beautiful.”445 The term “Golden age” symbolized this idealized period. The idea of reviving the old social order and Turkey’s power in world politics was frequently mentioned in the articles on the contrasts between “the golden age” and “last few centuries.”

c. Social Transformation
From 1996 to 1999, various articles discussed the issue of social transformation. The common idea in these articles was that social change is good as long as the basic religious and moral principles, national culture and identities are preserved.446 Thus despite the negative connotations of politics447 and ideology448 in the GC discourse, the morality of the nation, a very political issue by nature, as central. Gülen mentioned that the main elements of our religion and national culture should be absorbed by the society, even if this (making society absorb these values) is done in a disguised/covert way. None of the groups in society such as family, school, religious shrines and barracks should be deprived of these values.449 Gülen was against establishing a completely new political system or social order. Instead, he wanted to introduce novelties that are connected to old values. The assertion that change should be achieved through evolution, not revolution450 demonstrated the centrality of order, balance and harmony in the Community discourse. In order to achieve order, balance and harmony, we need morality. The state was viewed as an important factor in protecting and perpetuating morality and other elements of national identity.451 The importance of the state for the provision of order and stability were aspects of the dominant discourse after the 1980 military coup. In the 1980s, Gülen support for a strong state in providing order in the face of anarchy allowed the Community to continue its activities. Similarly, in the late 1990s, when the electoral success of the Islamic Welfare Party caused political tensions and led to the February 28th process, Gülen’s focus on individual transformation for an orderly social transformation and its view of the state as the guarantor of the status quo as opposed to supporting drastic socio-political changes once again differentiated the Community from Islamic actors who viewed top-down changes as necessary for social transformation. Thanks to its statist discourse, the GC was able to establish ties with the political leaders in this period.

The GC often emphasizes that individual transformation is essential for social transformation. What makes change possible are the actions of these individuals. Action, one of the most important elements of Gülen communities’ discourse,452 involves “trying to make individuals and groups acquire a new culture and understanding.” It means putting the ideas that emerge from our essence into practice. “Ideas that emerge from our essence” is a continuation of the Islamist discourses of 19th century. However, unlike the latter, the GC also used the word “terakki” (progress), a concept adopted from Western enlightenment discourse by the Ottoman Westernist intellectuals in 19th century. The concept of progress was incorporated into community discourse and given a new meaning: progress without changing national culture and identity.

In Sızıntı, discussions of national identity and the existence of different identities focused on the identity problems individuals might face as a result of increased interaction among different societies. Once again, national identity as social and political issue was discussed primarily through identity issues of an individual. Possible identity problems were exemplified by a man, who, while drinking beer, suggests to his German friend that he convert to Islam. Being Muslim and consuming alcohol was viewed as an identity crisis, because the two cultures here, the German and Muslim culture contradict one another. Thus, in GC discourse, desirable self-identity was one that does not involve contradictions. “Different identities” were acceptable as long as they do not contradict the basic common identity of a nation.453

d. Economy
The GC’s discourse on capitalism also involved elements from 19th century Islamist discourses. In Sızıntı, capitalism had a negative connotation, associated with self-interest. The emergence of self-centered individuals was viewed as a result of forgetting one’s culture.454 Colonialism was referred to as a devilish system, and countries that are crushed between the teeth of this system are not likely to be able to walk towards the future. It was argued that products and raw materials should be bought and sold for their real prices so that less developed countries could avoid being tricked by the tools of the strong economy of the West. Despite the negative connotation of capitalism, particularly the economies of the West, adopting an “economic state of mind,” “economic consciousness” or “building a civilization of industrialization” was encouraged: “In contrast to the West, Muslim Turkish society will not be a part of dirty and illegitimate aspects of industrialization.”455 The last sentence indicates that industrialization itself was not viewed as inherently bad and that it was possible to avoid its dirty and illegitimate aspects.

In the late 1990s there were various articles in Sızıntı that suggest a new understanding of the economic system. “In order to overcome economic problems such as high inflation” a new order of morality, understanding of the economy, conception of capital, philosophy of labor, virtue and spirit of responsibility is required.456 This economic system should involve the use of resources (above and below ground) in the framework of justice and fairness, solidarity, always for the good.457 All of the suggestions for solving economic problems focused on the cultural elements related to economic life. An “economic consciousness and culture” involved an ideal of development, high morale, eagerness to work and produce, elimination of wasteful expenditures, minimization of consumption, and domination of our thoughts by moral values and the idea of social responsibility.458 The idea of social responsibility was reinforced with the phrase, “We should not expect everything from the state,” a dominant discursive element in Turkey during the 1980s. In February 1997, Gülen indicated that aside from the state and the government, many responsibilities fall on voluntary institutions and even on each individual.459 In social life outside of work, small groups provide togetherness (birliktelik)460 and informal education, which is the primary factor that shapes an individual’s life.461

The significance of an order of morality and individual responsibility for economic stability is a part of both the Third Way neoliberal discourse and the AKP’s neoliberal discourse in the 2000s. It is no surprise that Sızıntı promoted social responsibility and voluntary institutions in the late 1990s, also an important element of the neoliberal discourses, since in this period the GC itself had already started to fulfill a neoliberal economic role of a non-state safety network and a welfare provider.

e. Women
Between 1996 and 1999 there was only one article in Sızıntı on women and gender differences.462 The article first explained the differences in men’s and women’s brains regarding the learning process. The author asserted that “There is no doubt in the fact that the gender identity in the mind is determined in accordance with the biological program of the human body, not according to culture or social conditioning.”463 The author mentioned that men and women are equal individuals in society. However, they are unequal in terms of their abilities and skills. The reason for the lower number of women engineers is not socio-economic inequalities between the two genders that result from gender constructions. Instead, it is a result of teaching men and women in a way more suited to men. As a result of the gender revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, women fell to the position of “a tool for satisfaction of desires” or a “commodity common to all” instead of occupying an important place in society. From the article the reader infers that “this inferior position” was considered to be a result of education styles and syllabi that were not suitable for women. If we really want to encourage more women to become engineers we can find a way to teach mathematics in a way that is more suitable to women’s brains.464 In the context of discussions of whether the religious community schools teach girls and boys in separate classes, the argument that girls and boys need different syllabi functioned as a legitimation for teaching girls and boys in different classrooms.

f. Democracy, freedom, human rights
In the late 1990s, the concepts of democracy and human rights entered into the Community discourse and had a positive connotation in the discourse. However, there was no discussion of their meaning or how they were related to the other concepts in the Community discourse. Between 1996 and November 1999, the concept of democracy was mentioned once and the concept of human rights was mentioned twice. In 1997, Gönüllü argued that concepts such as upholding democracy and human rights were almost viewed as a part of national identity, and thus part of individual self-identity as well.465 In March 1996, Gülen mentioned that problems, whose source is the society, cannot be solved by power over thought or fighting over public offices. Neither of the concepts were substantiated or discussed in Sızıntı.

5.6.4. Reference points and Associated Concepts
The figure below shows the major reference points and concepts that are re-defined in accordance with these reference points.
Figure 5.1. Reference Points and Associated Concepts Used in the GC Discourse between 1996 and 1999

In the late 1990s, fıtrat (human nature) and an individuals’ characteristics together constituted one of the central reference points, through which other concepts are defined. In this period the GC discourse emphasized the role of individuals in generating social transformation. Criticism of various philosophies, ideologies and beliefs (for example, materialism) was largely directed towards the individuals who espoused them. Comparisons between the “golden age” and the social order in “the last few centuries” were drawn through opposing personality traits. In bringing about social change, Gülen stressed the importance of specific personality traits, such as having a balance between rationality and emotions and discipline to achieve one’s ideals. is a central reference point that constructed subject positions. Aspects of human nature such as order, harmony, stability, and balance were also presented as constituting aspects of an ideal society. Acting in line with these traits would result in a balanced, stable and harmonious society, in other words, in the “a moral order.”