5.7. DISCURSIVE SHIFT : MARCH-DECEMBER 1999

 5.7. DISCURSIVE SHIFT : MARCH-DECEMBER 1999
The main discursive shift in the GC took place around June 1999, when videotapes in which Gülen seemed to advocate an Islamic state were released.466 This heralded a significant and abrupt change in the GC discourse. After March 1999, the main difference in Sızıntı was not the choice of topics, but the nomination and predication strategies employed in addressing those topics. Prevalent topics between 1996 and 1999, such as the difference between self and other, old social order and new social order, action and criticism of capitalism, continued to be discussed in 1999.

Towards the latter half of the 1999, there was an increase in the articles focusing on education, science (ilim) and media. One of the most significant changes in Sızıntı was the introduction of the concept of dialog in the March 1999 issue. The concept was defined as opening one’s mind, soul and heart to others, but it was not further elaborated. Still, the inclusion of the concept of dialog into the discourse of the community is significant, as it was central in the process of discursive articulation.

Regarding characteristics of self and other, a significant and swift change took place in the community discourse after March 1999, both in terms of mode of expression (tone) and the substance of texts. The contrast between self and other continued, but the focus of the contrast shifted towards the self and away from the other. Until mid-1999, the Community discourse on “self and other” had centered around constructing an identity for the Community followers through referring to the ideal follower as “the person of action/ideals/volition” and through long descriptions of the other. In the second half of 1999, the focus is on explaining the self to those who are outside the Community. Long descriptions of the self precede a short, yet severe, criticism of the other.

In the brief segments where identity of the other was constructed, the contents of the descriptions were similar to pre-1999. Also similar to pre-1999, the other was not wellspecified. Until mid-1999, the social order established by the other, referred to as materialists or “today’s generations,” was depicted as the prevalent social order. Contrasts between the old and new social order, which were discussed above, conveyed the idea that the existing social conditions need to be slowly gradually transformed. Starting from June 1999, the other was described as a small group of people, only a “marginal section of the society,” instead of “today’s generations.” Gülen mentioned that almost ninety percent of the Turkish population approved the GC, and referred to the activities of the Community as a “sacred process.” Remaining small group was causing animosity, anarchy and making false accusations.467

Starting with the leading article by Gülen himself in November 1999, the self was constructed as wronged and aggrieved.468 The self is a group of people, represented by the pronoun “we,” who had always cried for “respect for people.”469 They had accepted the reality of other religious and philosophical views. For this reason the slogan of this group of people had been “Respect for and acceptance of everyone as they are.”470 They had embraced the phrases “Respect for people, love for everything and everyone and tolerance for the whole world.” Sızıntı called to its followers to respect and protect the values of humanity at least from now on: “Let’s bury the disagreements in history, and respect (different) opinions.”471

The change in the characteristics of the self was accompanied by a change in the description of the cultural values of the nation. Gülen argued that in our understanding of culture and civilization, values of humanity have always been in the forefront.472 In March 1999, a member of the editorial board of Sızıntı, Arif Sarsılmaz, wrote an article on Sızıntı itself. Addressing the journal in the second person singular, he mentioned that he learned how to “‘plow the field’ without irritating some people and how to avoid making friends envious.”473 What Sarsılmaz meant is that Sızıntı’s discourse carefully avoided open confrontation with the secular actors in the society; at the same time it made an effort to avoid the harsh criticisms of other Islamic actors who were wary of Gülen’s discourse that exalted the state and emphasized the importance of order, stability and slow, gradual social change. Using such a discourse, the GC aimed to survive the polarization between Islamists and seculars in the 1990s.

The new self-identity constructed in a matter of months was presented as if it had always been the identity of the GC. However, such a swift change highlighted numerous contradictions. While the journal advised its readers to respect universal values and different opinions and cultures,474 in another issue, Gülen criticized the espousal of a worldview different from our own cultural heritage.475 The emphasis on culture instead of religion and morality seemed to result from the GC’s effort not to challenge the secular character of the state.