The 2nd Alevi Workshop and the state of the academy

Last month, the second of the Alevi Workshops was held in Istanbul, following the first, which had been held with representatives of Alevi discourse. This time the Workshop was held with scholars who have distinguished themselves through their academic work on Alevism. Alongside the scholarly level of academic work on Alevism, its problems and its difficulties, the meeting also discussed the general problems facing academic work in Turkey's university life as such.

That academics are seen as possessing a certain identity because of the field they work in (those who study Alevism seen as Alevi, those who study Kurdishness as Kurdist, those who study Islam as pious zealots) is a problem as simple as it is widespread, and it shows that going deeper in Turkish academia also carries great risks. Yet this is, of course, not the only obstacle to going deeper in academic life.

The closed-in character of Turkish academia, for one reason or another, also prevents it from developing knowledge that opens horizons for daily life. An academia withdrawn into its ivory tower, alas, cannot offer from that tower an environment for rising or going deeper either. A separate effort is needed to establish a relationship between the knowledge the university produces and the realities of life.

In the face of the Alevi question, academics in fact confronted their own problems on the occasion. The idea that the politician stands in a more advanced position than the academic was shared, through the references made by almost all participants, regarding the speech given by State Minister Faruk Çelik. Indeed, the perspective Mr. Çelik set out in both his opening and his closing speech showed how advantageous the politician can be vis-à-vis the academic, if he so wishes. Of course we say "if he so wishes," because we cannot say that the politician is always ahead of the academic either. Indeed, on the Alevi question no political party until now had put forward either a will or an approach resembling this.

There were indeed many points in Çelik's speech worth underlining. This one, for example: "Suppressed identities affect the social structure negatively and hinder the development of a culture of consensus. It is within the sphere of responsibility of politics to prepare the environment in which everyone can freely state their identity and social problems can be overcome."

This is an approach that does not regard the problem as consisting exclusively of Alevism but sees it from a much broader perspective. As participant Erol Göka also expressed, this perspective makes it necessary to point to a path that links the Kurdish question to the Alevi question, and perhaps from there to the headscarf question.

However, as Çelik also said in his closing speech, the problem undoubtedly has social dimensions as well as aspects related to the state or to legal regulation. The problems Alevis encounter do not stem merely from differences in legal regulation; it is also beyond doubt that an adjustment needs to be made in our social culture for a solution.

That is why, perhaps, as was said in the closing speech, there are "problems that will be resolved through administrative measures without waiting for legal regulations." "Realizing these makes social support necessary in addition to political will." These are extremely cool-headed assessments. A municipality's insistence on naming streets where Alevis live in the majority "Yavuz Selim," or the making of land allocations for cemevi construction more difficult, is not a situation required by law. Some social rapprochements and acquaintances that will enable Alevi and Sunni segments to understand one another better through their differences can be achieved on certain occasions. The ever-wider spread of the Muharram fast could accelerate this acquaintance. I am sure that many Sunnis are only now learning of the very existence of such a fast.

One of the topics discussed at length at the workshop was by whom the definition of Alevism is made or can be made. For example, do academics working on Alevism merely reflect what exists, or do they at the same time intervene in the definition of Alevism?

In fact, this subject also has dimensions extending to the deep philosophical issues of academia. Academic work is by nature descriptive. It is neither right nor realistic to find every study that engages Alevism at a scholarly level strange on account of this descriptive character. Every academic definition, of course, also has a changing, transformative character. No one can ever claim to keep their own essence fixed by saying "I will never change." Every encounter carries an interaction, and every interaction carries the potential for change.

Essentially, this is also among the most important dimensions of our being human. Yet ideologies generally exist by producing illusions of "immutability." Alevism studies too, even in their most objective form, cannot help changing the situation when they take a snapshot of it. This holds whether they do so from within Alevism or from outside.

Knowledge changes. Encounter and acquaintance change, and they change not just one side but both. From the change contained in knowledge and in human relationship, agreement and mutual respect, only abundance of blessing results for both sides, nothing else.