5.5. CHANGES IN THE GÜLEN COMMUNTY DISCOURSE

 5.5. CHANGES IN THE GÜLEN COMMUNTY DISCOURSE
In order to analyze the discursive shifts in the GC discourse, this study draws from Hall’s understanding of articulation. Hall views the establishment of hegemony as a process of articulating and disarticulating ideas. For him, articulation means forming discursive connections between different discourses. Laclau and Mouffe provide the framework of the mechanism through which articulation takes place. According to them, articulation is the process whereby certain concepts become reference points, or lenses in re-defining other concepts and temporarily fixing this meaning. Reference points also establish connections between various concepts. Different political actors compete to construct new reference points. Among these actors, those who can establish reference points that enable articulations between discourses of different socio-political actors can acquire legitimacy and become hegemonic.

As discussed in Chapter 2, the Discourse Historical Approach to discourse analysis provides tools with which we can identify reference points and associated concepts in a discourse. This chapter will analyze the uses of nomination and predication in GC publications, Sızıntı, Kırık Testi and Bamteli. Once the reference points in different time periods are identified, we can analyze the shifts in the reference points and whether hegemonic discourses played a role in these shifts.

The aim of this study is to understand, first, whether and how hegemonic discourses affect shifts in the community discourses, and vice versa. Second, this study aims to understand the purpose discursive shifts have served for the community and for the hegemonic power itself. A hegemonic discourse is composed of a hegemonic center and various layers of discourses loosely bounded with the hegemonic center. The focus of this study is the AKP’s discourse. It was argued in Chapter 3 that at the center of the AKP’s discourse is what the party refers to as “conservative democracy,” which is connected to dominant nationalist discourses traditionally associated with the center-right parties in Turkey, neoliberal discourse as used by international actors such as the IMF, and an Islamic language inherited from the Islamic Welfare Party (RP). The last portion of this chapter will investigate the relationship between the shifts in the reference points and AKP’s discourse.

This chapter analyzes the GC discourse in three different time periods. By starting the analysis from the year 1996, we can assess whether and how the GC’s discourse shifted as a result of the “February 28th process” in 1997, a process that significantly shaped the dominant and hegemonic discourses in Turkey. An analysis of the GC discourse in the late 1990s shows that there was a drastic change in June 1999, when the aforementioned videotapes of Gülen’s speech were broadcast and the State Security Court accepted a lawsuit against Gülen demanded by the state prosecutor. The public debates on Gülen’s videotapes remained intense until about December 1999. Starting from 2000, the media shifted its focus to other issues, and the GC journal Sızıntı started to take a less defensive tone.

After 2000, two publications became prominent sources of discourse in addition to the journal Sızıntı. Kırık Testi consists of videos of Gülen answering the questions of his followers, while Bamteli comprise the transcriptions of the Gülen’s interviews and sohbets (conversations). Some of the political issues Gülen discussed in Sızıntı prior to 2000 were increasingly discussed in these two outlets. After mid-1999, the community discourses slowly and gradually evolved in the context of shifts in the broader political and socio-economic structure. For this reason, a comparison of the second half of the 1990s and the second half of the 2000s will enable us to see the shifts in reference points and the concepts that they bind together more clearly relative to the reference points in late 1990s and early 2000s. From 2000 until around 2005 a number of new topics, such as business life, public relations and social solidarity against poverty are introduced into Sızıntı. In the latter half of the 2000s, concepts such as public relations, social capital or social solidarity are defined and connected to the other discourses in the community.

An analysis of the GC discourse with the tools of DHA enables us to identify shifts in three central reference points that bind together and shift the meanings of many of the concepts prominently used in the GC discourse:

1. The GC discourse in the late 1990s was centered on the idea that in order to bring about social change, individuals themselves must first change. To achieve an ideal society, more and more individuals must adopt the personality traits Gülen described in detail in Sızıntı. Human nature is a reference point in defining the characteristics of both the ideal individual and the ideal social order. Those who do not adopt ideal personality traits are acting against their nature. In the latter half of the 2000s, the role of community and its norms are emphasized to a much greater degree in bringing about social change compared to the role of personality traits.

2. In the late 1990s, “culture” and “order of morality” are reference points through which concepts such as order, security, economy, and action are defined. What culture and order of morality entail is explained by making reference to the “old social order,” meaning the Ottoman social order up until the implementation of reforms in the 19th century. In the late 2000s, Gülen uses the term “collective consciousness,” which indicates being aware of a common identity based on morality, religion, culture, and human nature. Compared to “culture” or “order of morality,” this is a more comprehensive and abstract concept. References to the “old social order” are also significantly less frequent in the latter half of the 2000s, compared to what was the case a decade before.

3. The GC’s discourse regarding what is considered public and private also shifted. The boundary of the public sphere becomes broader, at the expense of the private sphere. In the latter half of both the 1990s and 2000s, the definitions of public and private spheres are reference points that re-define gender roles and, together with the reference point “collective consciousness,” give meaning to concepts such as democracy, justice and freedom.

In addition to the shifts in the reference points, a significant difference between the GC discourses in the latter half of the 1990s and 2000s is related to the community’s use of concepts such as democracy and human rights. In the late 1990s, these concepts are used very rarely while discussing other subjects. In Sızıntı, there is no discussion of them or how they relate to community discourse in general. In the latter half of the 2000s, articles on democracy, human rights and other related concepts such as justice and freedom begin to appear. More importantly, these concepts are re-defined through the lenses of the new reference points discussed above, and linked to the other concepts and reference points in the GC discourse.

The following section will focus on the GC discourses between 1996 and 1999. The section will identify topics that are most commonly used in the GC discourse. In order to identify reference points that re-define subject positions, the section will investigate how the actors are nominated. Next, in order to identify reference points binding concepts together, the section will examine the predicates regarding the concepts and processes. Finally, reference points and related concepts, or, in other words, articulations, will be
mapped.