Sociological Portrait of the Gülen Movement
In his latest book, "Din-Kent ve Cemaat," or "Religion-City and Community," Ali Bulaç says that he tried to view the Gülen movement from the "inside." Bulaç's work is an extraordinary work given that sociologists in our country always view social phenomena from the "outside."
A new book has been published by Ufuk Kitaplari (Horizon Books) in its "Research on the Gülen Movement" series. Bulaç's book scrutinizes the movement sociologically. The work is actually the third book of a trilogy; however, the two books, originally planned to be the first two, will in this case have to be published after "Religion-City and Community." Their titles are "İslamcilarin Üç Nesli" (Three Generations of Islamists) and "Göçün ve Kentin Siyaseti" (Politics of Migration and City). Bulaç notes that it is impossible to operate in the sociological sphere by turning a blind eye to the Gülen movement, describing the movement as a "civil formation." Fethullah Gülen, the founder of the movement, is defined in the book as a "reformist" of the Islamic scholastic tradition; Bulaç tries to analyze his Gülen movement with an insider's view. The book's intellectual intensity is probably heralding to us the glad tidings of more voluminous works to come. We spoke with Bulaç about his book so full of determining remarks, each of which deserves to be dwelled upon.
At the beginning of the book, you say that you are someone who always tries to see the Islamic/social movements from the inside. In this respect, "Religion-City and Community" is very important, owing in particular to your deep command of Islamic sciences and sociology.
Theoretically, there may be disadvantages to seeing a social movement from the inside. However, we have so far been unable to test to see whether this is really so, because not generally but mostly, our sociologists look at social problems from the outside, including ?erif Mardin's work on Bediüzzaman [Said Nursi.] The distinguishing quality of looking from the outside is the basic approach where the subject is motivated by the social environmental factors that make it possible for social sciences to exist and where the subject takes action within the historical and social conditions. Mardin is able to appreciate and explain the reasons why Bediüzzaman was recognized and accepted in the East; however, he cannot do that with regard to his gaining recognition and being welcomed in the Barla district of Isparta because, according to his assumption, there is no similarity between the historical and social conditions of the East and the West where Said Nursi became Bediüzzaman. In this book I benefited from the possibilities of sociology in a way that doesn't push the natural boundaries; however, in the emergence of Fethullah Gülen, I underscored his community and his free will to elect as a subject.
Is it possible to analyze the Gülen movement solely through social arguments and without having a real command of religious sciences?
It is not possible to understand the Gülen movement, or any other social movement, with the possibilities of sociology only. Sociology simply deals with social events, social changes and the factors that play a role during a social change. Although it purportedly inspects what has happened, since this is impossible, it just implicitly refers to what should happen. This is the value-addict political facet of sociology, and is not immediately visible. My claim is simply this: The subjects who are members of the mobile society in the Muslim world and the society itself are undoubtedly deeply affected by material, financial and social conditions. Islam is a project of the abstract man; historical and social conditions make this abstract man into the tangible man. However, the part all of these play only points to these factors' affecting qualities. The real determining factor is man's free will and free preferences. Generally speaking, if a human is aware of the responsibilities incumbent on humans, he becomes a determining factor. The individual of the Illumination is determined to determine, but people of the Muslim world, whether or not they are aware of it, still act in accordance with the motivating factors of Islam. Therefore, knowing the religion of Islam and Islamic sciences is an obligation if one wants to understand what is happening in the Muslims world and with what sort of internal motives a Muslim subject acts. The greatest challenge of our sociologists is that their command of Islamic sciences is almost next to nothing. Islamic theologians, on the other hand, who are deeply familiar with Islamic sciences, attach too much importance to the method that conceals this fundamental weakness, thereby making the same mistake. Therefore, they, too, have difficulty understanding the Muslim subject.
In the chapter where you analyze the profiles of intellectuals and scholars, you touch upon Bediüzzaman while highlighting the separation between official Islam and civil Islam. Is the civil Islam within your definition something which Fethullah Gülen inherited from Bediüzzaman?
In my book titled 'Nuh'un Gemisine Binmek' (Embarking Noah's Ark), I dwelt on this issue. The separation between civil Islam and official Islam goes back to Muhammad Abduh and Jamaluddin Afghani. There are two eras in Said Nursi's life: In the first one he is the Old Said, as he refers to himself -- this was the era of the official Islam -- and in the second he is the New Said during the era of civil Islam. Bediüzzaman's motto that can summarize his stance during his civil life was "We don't want religion from the state; we demand freedom." Of course, Mr. Gülen is the successor of the New Said.
You refer in the book to the Gülen movement as a civil formation or as a community. Although you say that civil society organizations relate to the communities peculiar to Muslim societies, you hesitate to define the Gülen movement as a civil society organization. Could you expand on that?
What gives birth to civil society in the West is the bourgeoisie that developed as a reaction to the absolutist administrations and its search of a secular autonomous field. But today, civil society has turned into nongovernmental, autonomous and voluntary bodies. They emerged in the Ottoman era as the broad area regulated by Shariah law alongside traditional law, that is, it is directly related to religion. Foundations and social organizations used to operate freely in many fields that are now strictly controlled by the state. The Gülen movement has a civil character, is not an extension of the state, but is not against the state. The Ahi organizations of the past, the organizations called "fütüvvet" (chivalry), the guilds of artisans and merchants and the foundations were all similar to it in history. The organization model of the Gülen movement is mostly inspired by the Ahi organization, but is not a Sufi order. It is a civil community peculiar to the Turkish sociology.
You assess Fethullah Gülen's life in three phases; Gülen's arrival in the United States on March 21, 1999 is the beginning of the third phase, namely the global phase. Bearing in mind your statement that communities are the greatest phenomena in post-modern times, what are your projections about the future of this global phase?
Globalization is shaking the nation state to its very foundations, and it is dissolving society. [German sociologist Ferdinand] Tönnies was saying that there was a transition from communities to society and then from society to communities. This is exactly what is happening in today's world. However, the West's civil society and the East's civil communities develop differently. The communities that have a global language, strengthen the civil arena, emphasize real pluralism and protect the individual against the nation state without taking away his freedom will develop and will, as in the past, fulfill many social functions. It is generally possible to come across this strong inclination in communities in Turkey. And the community that represents the strongest inclination is the Gülen movement. (Can Bahadir Yüce, Istanbul)
- Created on .