The 2009 talk was a splendid and lively overview of Turkish political history, beginning with the reforms of the late Ottoman empire and extending to the present. Among other themes, Akyol focused on the emergence of the Anatolian middle class, and the challenges it has successfully posed to the Kemalist elites that have dominated Turkey since the founding of the republic in 1923.
A streaming video of the lecture will be available in about a week, and WBUR "World of Ideas" will broadcast the entire lecture in the near future. Watch here for more details.
In addition to the comments below, readers may be interested in comments posted on Kamil Pasha. These comments discuss critically Akyol's position on "intelligent design," which was not the topic of his lecture. At least one commenter argues (see below) that Akyol's perspective on evolution disqualifies him as a speaker on politics and history. That is an untenable position at a university, however, because it would suggest that speakers should be screened to insure they accept a particular scientific orientation, or worldview.
A streaming video of the lecture will be available in about a week, and WBUR "World of Ideas" will broadcast the entire lecture in the near future. Watch here for more details.
In addition to the comments below, readers may be interested in comments posted on Kamil Pasha. These comments discuss critically Akyol's position on "intelligent design," which was not the topic of his lecture. At least one commenter argues (see below) that Akyol's perspective on evolution disqualifies him as a speaker on politics and history. That is an untenable position at a university, however, because it would suggest that speakers should be screened to insure they accept a particular scientific orientation, or worldview.
8 comments:
Lecture on Modern Turkey by someone who advocates for Intelligent Design in Turkish educational system. Great choice. Who is next? Adnan Oktar? Fettullah Gulen?
I and some of my students had a chance to discuss some issues with Mustafa Akyol after his interesting lecture on Turkish society and politics (not science)at Boston University yesterday. Akyol told us that he had years ago put distance between himself and Adnan Oktar (when he was a college student some of his friends had been associated and he went along until he discovered what kind of outfit it was). He also no longer believes in "intelligent design", but has moved toward what he calls a belief in scientific explanations of science and philosophical explanations of philosophy. He says he has written about this, but clearly in Turkey whatever brush you are tarred with first sticks. The Turkish context is now so mindlessly divided that the idea that Akyol, as a thoughtful person, could have changed his mind about these issues isn't considered credible.
He does participate in events with the Gulen movement (as have I and many other diverse people, including Hillary Clinton and Samuel Huntington), but according to Akyol, he doesn't consider himself a 'member' or 'associate' of Gulen or any group, but rather as a "freelance" Muslim. Again, since this isn't a "category" in Turkey, where grey areas on any issue are not appreciated, Akyol is lumped uncritically with the amorphous category of Islamists.
The commenter's note isn't surprising from a Turk (I'm assuming the commenter is a Turk from the vitriolic tone), but shows a lack of understanding of scholarly debate and freedom of speech. And of course it's easy to disparage someone if you haven't heard anything they've said and don't keep up with their writings. Did the commenter attend the lecture, or is this simply another invitation to ban a speaker he or she might not agree with on every issue? Boston University invited Akyol specifically because the lecture series wishes a variety of voices and informed opinions.
The Campagna-Kerven lecture series provides a forum for informed lectures on modern Turkey. As a perusal of the lecture webpage reveals, the featured speakers are an impressive group. See http://people.bu.edu/arn/CK/Main%20Page.htm The series is entering its fifteenth year. This year's lecture focused on politics and society in Turkey. "Anonymous" does not address the substance of this year's excellent lecture by Mustafa Aykol. As for the comment that the lecture might in the future feature Fettullah Gulen, I think the commenter may not appreciate that the university is committed to the free and civil exchange of ideas. Gulen is an important and influential personality, and he his influence has been deeply felt in Turkish society. He now resides in the U.S. because of the threat of arrest in Turkey, and it would be very interesting to hear his reflections.
". because of the threat of arrest in Turkey,"
Now, this is laughable. Mr. Akyol has always one team, that of kemalist elites and poor pious people. This is complete non sense. Fethullah Gulen sect is so powerful now that they have everyone except maybe the army and the high judiciary under their control. Look at who is getting arrested, people like Turkan Saylan and the critics of the government. This series has no credibility in my eyes unless it gives people having too say not so nice things about Mr. Gulen (like his plans to take over, yes take over the critical poisitons in the state) and how he is a threat to our democracy. Someone should also have a say how the 80 coup has given its support to people like Mr.Gulen and non wonder Mr.Akyol would never mention this.
Well after all the harm Mr.Akyol has done to Turkey in the area of science with his advocation of ID, I couldn't simply accept that I changed my mind. It is not that simple, he should apologize for sponsoring those non sense lectures with the municipal support!
Elit de elitmis ha...
Nerde bizde o İngilazca?!-Ece Temelkuran
“Yıkıcı bölünmeyi engelleyecek bir model olduğunda birleşiyorlar:
Başbakan Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’ın, İslamcı kökleri olan ve resmi düzeyde laik olan Türkiye’yi 2002 yılından beri yöneten AKP. ‘Türkiye’de başarılı oldu, Mısır’da daha başarılı olur’ diyor Bay Şerif, ‘Parti dine saygı gösteriyor, ama insanların istediği yasalara da uyuyor’.”
Herald Tribune’de dün yayımlanan köşesinde Daniel Williams, Kahire’de yaşayan Muhammed Şerif adlı bir sosyalist ile Mustafa Naggar adlı radikal İslamcı Müslüman Kardeşler üyesi iki ahbabın ‘AKP’de cisimleşen mucizevi siyasi terkipte’ nasıl uzlaştıklarını anlatıyor.
Bir makale ki cennet gibi. Bir makale ki Ortadoğu’nun ve Balkanlar’ın bütün dertlerine derman. Merhemin adı belli: Ilımlı Siyasal İslam.
Medarımaişet motoru: AKP
Başbakanımız bundan hiç hazzetmiyor ama tam olarak partisinin temsil ettiği projenin muteber muhitlerdeki adı budur. Adıyla sanıyla AKP, ılımlı İslam projesinin hasbelkader çalışan tek örneğidir.
Her ne kadar Obama’nın Türkiye’de verdiği mesajlar ‘Beyaz Saray’ın ılımlı İslam projesinin terki’ olarak yorumlansa da, meselelere Ortadoğu’dan, sahadaki politik gelişmelerden bakınca hiç de öyle yeni bir manevra görünmüyor.
Siyaset üreten düşünce kuruluşları Doğu’dan Batı’ya her yerde hâlâ aynı türküyü çığırıyor. Beyrut’tan İslamabad’a, Arap yarımadasından Kahire’ye kadar ABD ve dünyanın diğer efendilerinin ellerini kirletmeden yürütebilecekleri tek proje hâlâ ılımlı siyasal İslam. İran‘ın rejim ihracına karşı ABD’nin ‘Made in Turkey’ damgası vurup bölgeye saldığı proje hâlâ bu.
Bu projeyi de Tayyip Bey temsil ediyor. Davos’ta Batı dünyasına güzel bir ayar vererek maneviyatını dengeliyor, IMF ile el sıkışıp maddiyatını ayarlıyor ve sen sağ ben selamet, “Durmak yok, yola devam”!
Hukuk ve ‘abiler’
Peki, Daniel Williams’ın belli ki bayılarak alıntıladığı cümle hâlâ doğru mu? AKP, yani ılımlı siyasal İslamın uluslararası siyasal pazar için üretilmiş numuneliği, ‘insanların istediği yasal sisteme uyuyor’ mu?
Ergenekon soruşturmasında gelinen son aşama, AKP hükümetine yönelik yolsuzluk suçlamalarının parti tarafından nasıl yönetildiğiyle birlikte okunursa görülecek ki AKP projesi sanıldığı kadar ‘meşru’ çalışmıyor.
Cemaat bağlarıyla çalışan bir yapı tek hukukun tek meşru kaynağını din olarak gördüğü için belki, laik hukuk sistemini ancak meşruiyeti kendinden menkul hedeflerini gerçekleştirmeye yaradığı zaman ciddiye alıyor.
Siyaseti bir yana bırakacak olursak, Ilımlı İslam projesinin sakıt olduğu yer burasıdır. Hukuk, ılımlı siyasal İslamcılar için bir teferruattır. Projenin siyasi hamileri bunu görecek mi peki?
Elit de elitmiş ha!
Epeydir aklımın bir köşesinde. Kimi yazar çizer taifesinin “Yaşasın elit yargılanıyor” dediği insanlara bakıyorum. Bu nasıl bir elit ki halk iktidarının temsilcileri dediğiniz adamlar gibi uluslararası finans ağlarının içinde değiller. Elit dediğinin globalleşen dünyada global bağları olur, Gülen cemaatinin mümtaz şahsiyetleri gibi.
Nasıl bir elit ki halk iktidarını öven gazeteciler gibi uluslararası basının seçkin muhitlerinde ahbaplara sahip değiller. Elit dediğin, açacak New York Times’a telefon, “Sabrina’cığım” diyecek, “Şu bizim Genç Sivilleri yazsana. Memleketteki tek muhalif çocuklar bunlar.”
Hop ertesi gün “Kemalist elit sümüğünü yiyormuş” düzeyinde yorumlar okuyacağız İngilazca! BBC’de, Herald Tribune’de hiç mi arkadaşı olmaz elit dediğin adamın? Neoliberal arkadaşlarından ezberlediği cümleleri söyleyecek canlı yayında İngilazca!
Yabancı basınla ahbaplık
Bu nasıl elitmiş ki uluslararası politikaların üretildiği düşünce kuruluşlarındaki toplantılara hiç çağırılmaz. Nasıl elitmiş ki hastaları ameliyat eder, çocukları okutur ve “Bu memleket nereye gidiyor?” diye kara kara düşünürmüş.
Dönelim soruya:
Ilımlı İslam projesinin hamileri, hukukun, projenin doğasıyla tutarlı olarak, ‘teferruata’ indirgendiğini fark edip Türkiye ve bölge için kurdukları planlarda bir revizyona gider mi?
Bunun için işte ‘elitin’ sesinin duyulması gerek. Ama nerde bizde öyle elit?! Nerde bizde o İngilazca!
The issue at hand is not whether or not Mr. Akyol should be permitted to speak. The issue is instead the reason for his selection as the speaker at an academic forum. I question this selection given his views on intelligent design (pre-destined evolution as Mr. Akyol calls it) and his bias in favor of the incumbent AKP government. Given the BU's emphasis on academic research, I expected a speaker who could objectively assess the strengths and weaknesses of Turkish institutions, including the AKP.
I think "Anonymous" means that s/he would have liked to hear someone whose views s/he embraces.
Since the lecture had nothing to do with evolution or natural selection, "creationism," or "I.D." it would be far more informative to know in what respects the commenter challenges the content of the lecture.
Instead, what is being are a series of ad hominem charges. That is not scholarly debate.
While I allow commenters to maintain their anonymity in many cases, when comments involve character attacks I do not. Therefore, "Anonymous" will have to use his or her own name in order to continue to post here.
(This is the first time I am posting here, I am not one of those anonymous people)
I don't understand why this issue had to get out of hand like this. Yes the commenter had a question about the wisdom of the speaker selection. That, in itself, is not a free speech issue.
The rest of the comments seem to concern whether the accusations (and non-accusations that nonetheless got answered) are true with gratuitous remarks about Turkey and who understands scholarship thrown in.
If the objection is to the speaker selection then 'ad hominem' is likely kosher anyway[1], since it is the person himself that the anonymous people are objecting to. When the issue is the person then the argument will be about the person. I don't think BU is in the business of providing apologetics for their past and future speakers' lives and involvements. When this came up in JW's blog, commenters did go and check for announcements of Akyol's cessation of his ID efforts (we/they don't believe it yet). Why go that route at all?
This is not a Turkish issue either. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Rush Limbaugh were invited to deliver a lecture about the US in a Turkish university and some anonymous Americans objected to his selection as a lecturer about the US. Why would their objections be bad? Of course they would use his past and his involvements while objecting. It turns out, for good reasons or bad, Akyol is just such a figure for some Turkish people. As simple as that.
So, let me attempt to be constructive here and offer an alterantive. Why would something like this not have worked:
Yes Akyol may have the past that he does but that is partly why he's an interesting lecturer. Even if he presented a completely biased and even somewhat misleading material that would still be OK. It is what this particular person with this particular past had to say that BU was interested in. Same goes with Gulen if he agrees to speak. These people, movements, their affiliated or sympathetic intellectuals do exist and are influential in Turkey and are therefore worth hearing.
[1] Things like 'he's beaten his wife' probably aren't, but things like 'he got punted from school for plagiarism' probably is.
Post a Comment