The conspiracy and sociology in Gezi

These days the balance between conspiracy discourses and discourses pointing to sociological dynamics seems to have gone astray, as in many other matters. Pointing to the sociological grounds of social movements of course does not mean saying that this ground is closed to every kind of intervention. Just as saying that any event has driving actors, planners, even directors does not require ignoring the sociological ground and dynamic on which that movement rests.

The Taksim Gezi Park incident has a sociological ground, fine. There are segments with strong objections to the government's policies and discourse, that is fine too. Moreover, we understand that these segments have recently become thoroughly enraged at the government's discourse and are motivated so as never to miss any opportunity for protest. On top of this, we have also listened to the analyses, told as if the youth of Generation Y had descended from heaven in a basket, about their new vision and culture of citizenship; that too is fine.

But after giving credit to all these analyses in the name of sociological analysis, why are we being kept from asking about the support that bankers, who are themselves forest-massacrers and who probably suck the blood even of a significant portion of the demonstrators through credit interest, are giving to these events, with the warning of conspiracism? Are these bankers, this high bourgeoisie, not supporting these actions in plain view of everyone? Are our eyes deceiving us?

So, are these usurers supporting these actions because they are burning with a passion for green, or are they expressing a grudge they share with the circles they have belonged to from the start? On what common ground can they come together in this uprising with socialist, anti-capitalist organization militants who have shouted no slogan in their lives other than cursing capital, and with workers' and civil servants' unions?

The cadres that took part in every coup attempt since February 28 are taking their places in these events. It was no secret that CNN, the BBC, German associations, American neo-con organizations and the Israelis all had a grudge against Erdoğan. Their coming together over this event may indeed be spontaneous. All of them have an account to settle with Erdoğan, and all of them may have been seized by the delusion that they could settle this account through this event. But does pointing out that, one way or another, all of them jumped on this event with an officiousness not seen in any similar event mean moving away from sociological analysis and veering into a conspiratorial approach? Not at all..

I can say this much: let no one doubt that those who, having seen this much, keep insisting that "there is no conspiracy" are schemers who are part of the conspiracy. And they are the ones who really mock the intelligence and reason of all of us. As if all the interventions, coups and operations up to now had happened otherwise.

The conspiratorial approach is the name for approaches that fill all the gaps of the events that have happened with unprovable, fabricated incidents, even though they have no evidence whatsoever. For intrigues that our eyes see, that have become public, that have been caught red-handed, there is no need for a conspiracy theory. Thank God everything is taking place before our eyes; those behind the event do not hide that they stand behind it, and with all their recklessness and emotional attitudes they make their positions and their support plainly evident. Despite all this openness, those who cling to the defense that there is no conspiracy are still busy scheming.

Moreover, conspiracism believes in the continuity of the endless and chained power of mysterious forces. The sociological approach, however, takes into account that countless elements in society are in contention with one another and that no single planning element, actor or organization can ever control everything as it wishes forever. Elements that engage in engineering activity in society, sometimes openly and sometimes covertly, have of course always existed and will exist, but this does not mean that everything will take place under its control. All plans can be disrupted in the face of an incalculable, nasty reality. Sociology calls this "the unintended or unintentional consequences of action."

If the conspirator has a conspiracy, there are surely other conspiracies against it as well. Let us finish without dragging it out: in short, if the forces of evil have a plan, God also has a plan.