The Istanbul perspective: the new language of decolonization and Turkey's historical role

The World Decolonization Forum held in Istanbul over the past two days was an event far beyond being one of the ordinary international meetings held in Turkey in recent years. Above all, what was discussed here was not merely an academic theory or stories of past colonialism, but the question of which moral and epistemological crises the modern world has been dragged into and with which concepts humanity will reconstitute itself from now on.

For precisely this reason, the holding of the forum in Istanbul should not be regarded as a coincidence. Throughout history Istanbul has never been an ordinary city; it has been a threshold where civilizations touched one another and different traditions of knowledge met. That it is now being put forward once again as a candidate to become one of the world's epistemological centers is a continuation of this historical memory.

One of the notable aspects of the forum was that it brought together so many important names from different regions of the world with work, stances, and views on decolonization. The discussions of figures such as Walter Mignolo, Salman Sayyid, Syed Farid Alatas, Anne Norton, Ebrahim Moosa, Sami al-Arian, and François Burgat in fact revolved around a common problem: Is the modern world truly universal, or is it a great hegemony through which the West imposes its own historical experience on all humanity?

This question, without doubt, does not remain merely a theoretical one today. What happened and is still happening in Gaza has placed this question before humanity in all its nakedness. For the language that the modern world has built in the name of "universal human rights," "international law," "civilization," "freedom," and "democracy" has largely collapsed in the face of the massacre in Gaza. If the lives of children killed in Palestine are not seen as being as valuable as those of Western people, then there is here not only a political double standard but also an epistemological hierarchy.

Perhaps the most important aspect of the forum lies right here: the emphasis that decolonization is not only political independence but mental independence.

The opening speech of Dr. Esra Albayrak, the leading figure in the organization of the forum, was a speech of manifesto value that both set the spirit of the forum and offered an important perspective on decolonization. It was not a political address merely making the familiar, reactive critique of the West; it was a deep philosophical-sociological questioning of the founding of modern knowledge.

In particular, the statement "the greatest illusion of modern Western philosophy is the arrogance of the zero point" summed up the theoretical backbone of the problem. Western modernity has always presented itself as an ahistorical, placeless, and neutral reason. In the process that began with Descartes' proposition "I think, therefore I am," the subject that produces knowledge was virtually disembodied; thereafter all the philosophies and sciences put forward, whether in the name of scientism, or of the Enlightenment and positivism, positioned themselves in an objectivity above history, above society, and above the body, in the "arrogance of the zero point."

Yet knowledge always arose from a geography, from a particular historical experience, from an individual body, and from a relation of power.

The examples Albayrak gave, from Linnaeus to Hegel, from Kant to Francis Galton, were very important. For the founding names of the history of modern science had at the same time built the mental infrastructure of colonialism. In their philosophies humanity was classified hierarchically; the European subject was seen as the "universal human," while other societies were seen as forms of deficient humanity. In this framework, among the founding names of the West, still admired in our academic-intellectual circles, which Albayrak touched upon, such as Kant, who lectured on racial hierarchies, and Hegel, who in his philosophy declared Africa a continent without history, are passed over as insignificant details. This alone is the most internalized example of colonizing oneself.

What Walter Mignolo calls "epistemic disobedience," that is, refusing to read the world only with the concepts of the West, is very important. Salman Sayyid's work on the "re-politicization of Muslimness as a subject" can also be thought within the same framework. For the fundamental issue of decolonization is not only economic independence but man's ability to speak in his own name.

There was one idea repeated often throughout the forum: the crisis of the modern world is no longer merely an economic or military crisis; it is a crisis of meaning. Humanity is losing its trust in the concepts that define it. Gaza has become the greatest mirror of this.

The emphasis on Gaza in Esra Albayrak's speech was central for this reason, but what was even more important was her emphasis that we cannot achieve epistemic justice without a power, without achieving economic justice: "Gaza has caused the moral legitimacy of the current international system to be questioned," for today the most important institutions of the modern world, from universities to human rights courts, have been dragged to a point that contradicts their own founding principles.

Because of another program of mine, I was able to follow the first day's meetings only as far as they were reflected in the media, and the fact that the language of the forum was not pessimistic was, I think, its most productive aspect. On the contrary, there was a search for a new possibility here. At this point, the approach Esra Albayrak proposed as the "Istanbul Perspective" is, I suppose, a proposal that will set its stamp on the discourse on decolonialism (decolonization) from now on. This approach proposes not putting another center in the place of the West, but building a multi-centered, perhaps even centerless, world. That is, a world in which Jakarta, Rabat, Cairo, Addis Ababa, Sarajevo, Istanbul, and even Gaza can contribute anew to humanity with their own traditions of knowledge.

As can be readily recalled, this idea is also in harmony with the foreign policy and civilizational discourse that Turkey has developed in recent years. The role Turkey plays in the international system today is not only geopolitical. Turkey is increasingly becoming the carrier of an epistemological objection.

For this reason, President Erdoğan's words "The world is bigger than five" are not merely a call for diplomatic reform; they are a challenge directed at the single-centered hierarchy of the modern world. For today, as in the UN Security Council, so too in knowledge production, in the media order, and in the field of technology, the world operates under the domination of a few centers.

The discussions at the forum on artificial intelligence and digital colonialism were also very important in this respect. Esra Albayrak's analogy, "The new Crusoes are reaching our children's minds," was quite striking. For today colonialism no longer operates only through the occupation of land; it operates through data, algorithms, digital platforms, and cultural steering.

In which languages are large artificial intelligence models trained today? Which historical narratives are placed at the center? Which sufferings are made visible and which invisible? All of these are part of epistemological power relations.

Perhaps for the first time, the Istanbul perspective turns this objection into not merely a defensive reaction but a new conception of the world.

The role Turkey plays here is not merely to develop a critical, reactive, and whining language, but an effort to produce alternatives. Many initiatives, from the indigenization moves in the defense industry to media networks, from educational institutions to cultural production, are in fact parts of epistemological independence. For the political independence of societies that cannot produce their own technology, concepts, and narrative also remains incomplete.

But without doubt, even the official history and identity discourse in Turkey still bears the traces of colonization heavily. The racist boundaries placed 120 years ago, as a link of colonization, between the Turkish-Arab-Kurdish peoples continue today to perform their function in the minds of these very peoples as the epistemological guards or wardens of the colonizers. There is still much distance to be covered in this regard.

That the Occidentalism symposium, which Siirt University is to organize for the second time, will begin the day right after the decolonization meeting in Istanbul (14-15 May) is a meaningful coincidence.

After all, Occidentalism too continues the subject as an answer given to decolonization at the epistemological level.