Cumhuriyet İlahiyat Dergisi

Abstract

Abstract: Modernity has long been a dominant paradigm in producing knowledge and
in determining theoretical framework of disciplines although it is in connivance with a
Eurocentric ideology and conflict of paradoxes inherent to itself. The other participant of the
crime, committed with Eurocentric ideology, is sociology as a method of observation
that modernity uses to observe itself and that developed with it. They also
display a tautological view with each other. Disharmony of paradoxes inherent in modernity makes such othering
notions as rejection and negation inevitable. Otherization in sociological
literature has been a reference point in historiography that is developed with the claim that historical
process experienced throughout Europe is the only straight and universal one
with an essentialist perspective, in the Orientalist discourse that is
established in parallelism with colonial activities and generating ideal tips.
This article aims to criticise the framework and the narrative in modernity and
sociology as they contain Eurocentric discourse according to post-colonial theory.
While chasing a non-othering paradigm, inquiring troubles and dilemmas that
post-colonial theory faced will also be the another of this study. This paper
aims to be authentic by determining the problems of post-colonial theory that
criticises the dominant paradigm through orientalist discourse yet falls into
clutches of self-orientalism.

Summary: The past and the present have been separated due to
modern history writing. Linear history writing that transforms the past into a
dead object that can be represented has been established on difference. The
contributions of anthropology which is the science of primitive societies
cannot be denied in “cleaning” the past and separating it from the present and
in establishing it as an object of knowledge. It is clear that anthropology is
functional in teaching Oriental societies that they have remained in the past
and that they do not have a place in our day by way of results put forth by
anthropology in its tense relationship with the past –protecting and destroying
at the same time. Similarly, in sociological thought this modern concept of
history attributing a direction and integrity to history has been seminal. Dual
categorizations that the sociological canon consults in depicting the
historical development process of societies have been arranged in accordance
with the linear history writing. The hierarchical order established between dual
concepts has been established at the same time according to the modern which is
also a concept of time. The beginning has been determined according to the end
in the Eurocentrism history writing that has been formed as though trying to
prove that the problem of history is not the past but the present. Such history
writing that moves from the primitive to the modern, from the simple to the
complex has been drawn out according to the final state of the writer of linear
history. The West has fortified its hegemony on the subordinate masses that it
has suppressed as those “without history”, those “who wish to enter into
history”, those “who are late to history.” In this paper, its own development has
been depicted through the primitiveness of the other that it has otherized.
Therefore, the Other has been taken into consideration as the place of
reflections or denial within the context of the formation of Western identity
in sociological thought. The Other that is inherent to the process of establishment
for the Western mind and knowledge preserves its qualification as a
prerequisite for sociology that acts in a coordinated manner with modernity.
Whereas the notion of Othering puts forth the East as not only passive and irrational
but also closed to change, it emphasises the difference with regard to the
uniqueness of the West. Therefore, sociological thought has established its
contact with the “discovery team of colonization” in the words of Cemil Meriç by
way of the othering notion of modernity with which it acts in a coordinated
manner. Whereas social change in sociological thought is formulated as from the
traditional to the modern, the difference has been suppressed as “tradition,”
thus preserving the homologizing perspective of modernity that disregards differences.
In addition, presenting the private experience of Europe as universal is an
indication of the organic bond between Euro-centralist discourse and social
science with its one-directional, linear and essentialist form. Indeed, the
statement, “The country that
is more developed industrially
only shows, to the less developed,
the image of its own future,” by Marx has been used in sociological literature
as a fundamental assumption during the construction of a modernization project.
Thus, a Euro-centralist social sciences understanding with claims of
universality has been developed that positions itself in the center and that others those not belonging to itself.
Even though the effects and dimensions of Euro-centralist practices are
presented differently by the researchers in the field, we are of the opinion
that Arif Dirlik has put forth the most comprehensive judgment by stating that
“Eurocentrism is the product of an unusual desire and effort put forth for
organizing knowledge about the world in a systematic whole. Other societies
that strive in vain to catch the West by imitating it in its Eurocentrism,
linear and one-way “advancement” adventure have all been placed at certain
spots behind the West. In this regard, sociology can be considered as a
knowledge system that has not only been fitted to Western history but also established
by that history. And of course, factors such as colonization and slave trade
have always been ignored in “history.”

The approach of the West that places itself in the
center has resulted in reactions from the “periphery.” In this regard, cultural
diversity was tried to be emphasized through the idea of multiple modernities; however,
evaluation of the generated alternative modernities in comparison with Western
modernity has strengthened the current understanding. A similar danger is
present in the practices of culturality that is another alternative. The
culturalist paradigm that considers the universality claim of the
Western-centered mental structure as unnecessary generates new others by means
of the belief in the superiority of its own culture. It tries to object to the Eurocentrism
with a reductionist, reactionary and hegemonic structure by loading all areas
of social experience to culture. However, it is exactly due to these
characteristics that it turns into an approach that serves the existence of the
current structure due to these characteristics.

Eurocentrism and othering are the two main approaches
that result in orientalism. These three concepts enlarge their scopes thus
strengthening its hegemony. The West has started off from the East to define
itself after which it has defined the East based upon itself. This definition
results in pushing it to an “order” in the upcoming stages. One of the
formative question of sociological thought, the reason for the initial
emergence of industrial capitalism in the West points to another dimension of
the discussions based on East/West comparisons. Indeed, the claims in Islamic
societies regarding the lack of an autonomous bourgeoisie class, independent
cities, autonomous law, rational law, private property and civil society have
been put forth as an answer to this question. The claim that there is no civil
society has especially been used in the analysis of Muslim societies. Whereas
according to Bryan Turner, “the orientalist discourse on the lack of a civil
society in Islam was a reflection of the basic political anxieties regarding
political freedom in the West. In this regard, the problem of orientalism was
not the Orient but the Occident. Later, these problems and anxieties were
transferred to the Orient. Thus, Orient became a caricature of the West and not
a representative of the East.” The orientalist discourse imposed its uniqueness
once again by putting forth its “difference.” As an answer to the question of
why capitalism emerged not anywhere else but Europe, Weber put forward the opinion
that the aforementioned factors, “are prevented by the patrimonial nature of
Islamic political institutions.” We are of the opinion that the problem is
equivalent to accepting the whole world excluding the West as “abnormal”
regardless of the reply given.

However, responses to this and other similar
questions/criticisms may lead to other problems. For instance, Sabri Ülgener, a
representative of the Weber sociology in our country, seems as if he has
accepted that capitalism is a precondition for advancement by stating that
Islam has been an urban religion since its foundation. This attitude should be
the product of a self-orientalist perception. And this type of perspective, in
the simplest expression, enables an evaluation in the form of “Westernization
for fighting the West.”