Mehmet Muderrisoglu | University College London (original) (raw)
Uploads
Papers by Mehmet Muderrisoglu
L. Köker (ed.), Aydınlanma ve Hukuk [Enlightenment and Law], Istanbul: Osmanlı Bankası Arşiv ve Araştırma Merkezi., Mar 2008
Conference Presentations by Mehmet Muderrisoglu
In recent years, the disagreement on the constitutional meaning of secularism in Turkey has becom... more In recent years, the disagreement on the constitutional meaning of secularism in Turkey has become threatening to the very stability of democratic institutions. Therefore, an inquiry into the limits of disagreement on secularism in Turkey has gained urgency. There are two main camps in the debate: Kemalist/secularists who defend a rigidly non-religious public sphere as the site of national self-expression; and Sunni-Islamists who seek to redefine ‘official secularism’ in favour of religious liberty. In order to view the points of potential agreement between these alternative conceptions, emphasising the general normative framework that these feed from may prove helpful. This paper attempts to construct rival normative models of secularism found in republican and liberal traditions, and by delineating the boundaries of reasonable disagreement, to explore which account of secularism runs the best chance of being affirmed by secularist and religious Turkish citizens. I argue that John Rawls’ political liberalism provides basis for an alternative understanding of secularism that is better equipped to generate agreement between Kemalist and Islamist doctrines.
This paper builds upon Charles Taylor’s ‘Modes of Secularism’: ‘common-ground’ (CG), ‘independent-ethic’ (IE) and ‘political liberal’ (PL) secularisms. All three are distinct ways of allowing general agreement on secular-political institutions. This is done in CG by highlighting points of intersection between confessional allegiances and in IE by providing a ground that lies ‘outside’ of any form of religious belief. While the former involves some form of state control over religious belief by the promotion of civic religion, the latter requires separation between politics and religion by relegating belief to the private sphere. In this sense, the Kemalist understanding of secularism blends CG and IE by attempting to redefine the ‘true’ Islamic faith as being private and patriotic, while emphasising the need to separate faith and reason by grounding politics and law on reason alone. Islamist alternative to this official doctrine is a minimal conception of secularism based on the non-intervention of state in religious life (which is reflected in the policies of the ruling party AKP). In this view, Sunni-Islamic tradition (rather than Turkish nationalism) is the common basis that provides substance to civic allegiance to the state.
Yet both Kemalist and Islamist conceptions suffer from attempting to justify secularism on the basis of their ideological presuppositions alone, which cannot provide sufficient basis for the long-term well being of secular democratic institutions. At this point, John Rawls’ theory of ‘political liberalism’ (PL) can provide analytical tools that may be helpful in grounding the ongoing conflict on secularism on a more principled basis. In this paper, I will explore whether a PL form of secularism can command general allegiance by preserving the respective normative priorities of secularist and religious citizens while providing a basis on which we may reasonably expect them to agree. To do so, I begin by analysing how political unity is achieved by civic religion in republican/CG, religious neutrality in liberal/IE, and an interplay between comprehensive and independent reasons in Rawlsian/PL approaches to secularism. Then I provide a systematic survey of the affinities of Kemalist and Islamist conceptions with these normative models. Finally, I explore whether there are principles within Kemalist and Sunni-Islamist traditions to affirm a PL version of secularism.
Thesis Chapters by Mehmet Muderrisoglu
L. Köker (ed.), Aydınlanma ve Hukuk [Enlightenment and Law], Istanbul: Osmanlı Bankası Arşiv ve Araştırma Merkezi., Mar 2008
In recent years, the disagreement on the constitutional meaning of secularism in Turkey has becom... more In recent years, the disagreement on the constitutional meaning of secularism in Turkey has become threatening to the very stability of democratic institutions. Therefore, an inquiry into the limits of disagreement on secularism in Turkey has gained urgency. There are two main camps in the debate: Kemalist/secularists who defend a rigidly non-religious public sphere as the site of national self-expression; and Sunni-Islamists who seek to redefine ‘official secularism’ in favour of religious liberty. In order to view the points of potential agreement between these alternative conceptions, emphasising the general normative framework that these feed from may prove helpful. This paper attempts to construct rival normative models of secularism found in republican and liberal traditions, and by delineating the boundaries of reasonable disagreement, to explore which account of secularism runs the best chance of being affirmed by secularist and religious Turkish citizens. I argue that John Rawls’ political liberalism provides basis for an alternative understanding of secularism that is better equipped to generate agreement between Kemalist and Islamist doctrines.
This paper builds upon Charles Taylor’s ‘Modes of Secularism’: ‘common-ground’ (CG), ‘independent-ethic’ (IE) and ‘political liberal’ (PL) secularisms. All three are distinct ways of allowing general agreement on secular-political institutions. This is done in CG by highlighting points of intersection between confessional allegiances and in IE by providing a ground that lies ‘outside’ of any form of religious belief. While the former involves some form of state control over religious belief by the promotion of civic religion, the latter requires separation between politics and religion by relegating belief to the private sphere. In this sense, the Kemalist understanding of secularism blends CG and IE by attempting to redefine the ‘true’ Islamic faith as being private and patriotic, while emphasising the need to separate faith and reason by grounding politics and law on reason alone. Islamist alternative to this official doctrine is a minimal conception of secularism based on the non-intervention of state in religious life (which is reflected in the policies of the ruling party AKP). In this view, Sunni-Islamic tradition (rather than Turkish nationalism) is the common basis that provides substance to civic allegiance to the state.
Yet both Kemalist and Islamist conceptions suffer from attempting to justify secularism on the basis of their ideological presuppositions alone, which cannot provide sufficient basis for the long-term well being of secular democratic institutions. At this point, John Rawls’ theory of ‘political liberalism’ (PL) can provide analytical tools that may be helpful in grounding the ongoing conflict on secularism on a more principled basis. In this paper, I will explore whether a PL form of secularism can command general allegiance by preserving the respective normative priorities of secularist and religious citizens while providing a basis on which we may reasonably expect them to agree. To do so, I begin by analysing how political unity is achieved by civic religion in republican/CG, religious neutrality in liberal/IE, and an interplay between comprehensive and independent reasons in Rawlsian/PL approaches to secularism. Then I provide a systematic survey of the affinities of Kemalist and Islamist conceptions with these normative models. Finally, I explore whether there are principles within Kemalist and Sunni-Islamist traditions to affirm a PL version of secularism.