Özet:

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.” 

Anahtar Kelimeler: