Journals / Mülkiye Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 39 - Sayı: 2

-

Yerelleşmenin ve Evrenselleşmenin Ötesinde Kürt Sorununu Yeniden Düşünmek

Pages
61–84
Publication Date
2015-06-20
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Thereafter, based on the exemplary practices and experiences carried out in Rojava, the paper examines the project of democratic autonomy –the kernel of which is universalization through localization- as a methodology of de-colonization that seeks to transcend the aforementioned distinction

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:There are different ways in which cultural differences are denied in Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The other most effective form of denial is based upon the idea of Islamic universalism (Islamic fraternity), which has become hegemonic during the AK Party government in the last decade.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Thereafter, based on the exemplary practices and experiences carried out in Rojava, the paper examines the project of democratic autonomy –the kernel of which is universalization through localization- as a methodology of de-colonization that seeks to transcend the aforementioned distinction
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kürt sorunu · yerelleşme · evrenselleşme

Abstract

There are different ways in which cultural differences are denied in Turkey. A most established among them is grounded upon the idea of ‘neutrality of state’, which argues that state is supposed to stand in equal distance towards difference. The other most effective form of denial is based upon the idea of Islamic universalism (Islamic fraternity), which has become hegemonic during the AK Party government in the last decade. Apart from these two major modalities, there are also the leftist and the liberal multiculturalist ways of denial of difference that operate through negating the constitutive link between culture and economy, identity and class, symbolic violence and economic exploitation, and ultimately between recognition and redistribution. This paper, at first, disputes this third kind of denial that operates through the forging of a strict distinction between identity and class, specifically by way of demonstrating the mutual constitution of class and identity within the context of post-coloniality. Thereafter, based on the exemplary practices and experiences carried out in Rojava, the paper examines the project of democratic autonomy –the kernel of which is universalization through localization- as a methodology of de-colonization that seeks to transcend the aforementioned distinction

Özet

Türkiye’de kültürel çeşitliliğin inkârının farklı biçimleri var. Bunlardan en kadim ve yerleşik olanlarından biri “devletin nötrlüğü” olarak kavramsallaştırılan devletin herkese “eşit mesafede” durduğu ya da durması gerektiği fikri üzerinden iş gören kurumsal inkâr biçimi ise, diğeri AK Parti döneminde yükselen İslami evrensellik üzerinden işleyen inkârdır. Bunun dışında sol ve liberal çok kültürcü çevrelerin söylemlerinde kültür ile ekonomi, kimlik ile sınıf, simgesel şiddet ile ekonomik sömürü ve nihayetinde tanıma ile yeniden dağıtım arasındaki gerilimli kurucu bağın görünmez kılınması üzerinden işleyen başka türlü inkâr biçimleri de mevcut. Bu yazı, ilk olarak, söz konusu kimlik sınıf ayrımı üzerinden işleyen inkârı (post-) kolonyal bağlamı içine oturtarak ana hatlarıyla tartışacak. Daha sonra bu ayrımı aşmanın bir arayışı olarak önerilen ve esasını yerelleşerek evrenselleşmenin oluşturduğu “demokratik özerklik” fikrini Rojava örneği üzerinden tartışmaya açacak.

🔖

Cite This Article

KÜÇÜK, B. (2015). -. Mülkiye Dergisi, Cilt: 39 - Sayı: 2, 61–84. https://ajindex.com/articles/211525

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (20)

  1. Ahmed S (2007). Multiculturalism and the Promise of Happiness. New Formations, 63(1), 121-138.
  2. Aktar A (1996). Trakya Olaylarını ‘Doğru’ Yorumlamak. Tarih ve Toplum, 155, 45-57.
  3. Altuğ S (2013). Claims to self-rule in the fever of war in Syria, Boğaziçi Chronicles Translocal Commons. A Colloquium with Susan Buck-Morss. Appadurai A (2002). Deep Democracy: Urban Governmentality and the Horizon of Politics. Public Culture, 14(1): 21–47. Balibar É (1994).
  4. Masses, Classes, Ideas: Studies on Politics and Philosophy Before and After Marx. London: Routledge. Balibar É (2003). “Droit de citeor Apartheid?.” We, the People of Europe? New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 31-50. Balibar É (2007). The Philosophy of Marx. New York ve London: Verso. Beşikçi İ (1977). Kürtlerin Mecburi İskanı. Ankara:
  5. Komal Yayın. Beşikçi İ (1990). Devletlerarası Sömürge Kürdistan. Paris: Institut Kurde de Paris. Beşikçi İ (1992a). Doğu Anadolu’nun Düzeni: Sosyo-ekonomik ve Etnik Temeller. Ankara: Yurt Yayın. Beşikçi İ (1992b).
  6. Tunceli Kanunu (1935) ve Dersim Jenosidi. Ankara: Yurt Yayın. Beşikçi İ (1992c). Orgenerâl Muğlalı Olayı, Otuz üç Kurşun. Ankara:
  7. Yurt Yayın. Bhavnani K ve Bhavnani, R (1985). Racism and Resistance in Britain. İçinde: Dcoates, G H ve Bush, R (der). A Social Anatomy of Britain. Cambridge: Polity Press, 146-159.
  8. Bora T ve Erdoğan N (2008). Bu sayıda… Toplum ve Bilim, 113, 3-9.
  9. Brown W (1993).
  10. Wounded Attachments, Political Theory, 21(3), 390-410.
  11. Butler J (1998).
  12. Merely Cultural, New Left Review, I(227), 33-44.
  13. Callari A ve Ruccio D F (1996). Introduction. İçinde: Postmodern Materialism and the Future of Marxist Theory. Essays in the Althusserian Tradition. Wesleyan University Press, 1-50.
  14. Candan A B ve Kolluoğlu B (2008) Emerging Spaces of Neoliberalism: A Gated Town and a Public Housing Project in Istanbul. New Perspectives on Turkey, 39, 5-46.
  15. Çiçek C (2012). Etnik ve Sınıfsal İnşa Süreçleri Bağlamında Kürt Meselesi: Bölgesel Eşitsizlik ve Bölgesel Özerklik. Praksis, 28, 11-42.
  16. Demirtaş S (2015). Türkiye HDP’lileşiyor. http://www.medyafaresi.com/m/haber/Demirtas- Turkiye HDPlilesiyor_481209.html. Son erişim tarihi, 20.05.2015.
  17. Fanon F (2004). The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press, 35-106.
  18. Foucault Michael (2003).
  19. Society Must Be Defended, Lecture 17 March 1976, New York: Picador, 239-264.
  20. Gibson-Graham J K (2004). The Violence of Development: Two political imaginaries. Society for International Development, 47/1, 27-34. Gönen Z (2012). Yoksulluğ