Critiques of modernity and political will

On the occasion of the Abant meeting in Cairo, I realized that many unfinished accounts regarding Turkey’s past need to be recalled. For instance, topics such as Islam and Modernization were once discussed quite extensively in Turkey, even if perhaps not at the level they deserved. Recently, a visible lull occurred in these debates without anyone gaining a sense of clarity regarding the progress made. It is truly difficult to understand the reason for this standstill... A factual retreat took place from the debates without any reckoning regarding which of the previously voiced critiques and analyses concerning modernity and religion held true and which did not.

Perhaps there was no longer any relevance to interpreting the course of the world through the concept of modernization. Perhaps it feels more attractive to explain the world now through newer concepts called globalization or postmodernization. Or perhaps modernization makes itself felt as a process that has been realized and completed to such an extent that no one can resist it anymore.

Over time, modernization exerted an influence that transformed whatever it touched into its own image. As a final stage, it interconnected the entire world. The concept of "modernity as a categorization based on time or history" is no longer sufficient to describe the structural characteristics of the world. Instead, the concept of "globalization," which emphasizes space and geography, comes to the fore.

Postmodernism, on the other hand, is another concept depicting the mindset and cultural realm that corresponds to this global phase.

Concepts are not themselves the subjects of events. They are tools hoped to facilitate understanding of what takes place. If these concepts obscure rather than better explain what is happening, then there is a serious problem. The concept of modernization is one of the most prominent concepts experiencing this issue.

At the Abant meeting in Cairo, Prof. Tülin Bümin, one of the guests, pointed out in private conversations an aspect of modernization analyses that operates against the political and impedes a political stance. I have long had a similar discomfort regarding critiques of modernization made in the name of religion. We can see this very clearly when we elevate the concept of modernization from being an analytical tool to an ideological subject. Modernization is depicted as a demonic super-subject that determines everything happening in the world, dictates everything, and encompasses time and space. This is such a picture that it swallows everything in a way that never allows anyone who says "I exist" in this world to step outside it. What does it mean to oppose something that cannot be stepped outside of ontologically? If you wish, start thinking about the problem from here and see where you arrive.

When such a depicted modernity is opposed fundamentally, the only option left before you is actually nothing other than surrendering to it. Worse, and what usually happens, is the contradiction of living right in the middle of a world depicted in this way while striving to live under the illusion of opposing it.

I call it an illusion; you may say, as in the famous prayer, "being far from seeking the strength to change what we can change, the patience to bear what we cannot change." Furthermore, say "lacking the insight to discern the difference between what we can change and what we cannot."

Yet, what we call politicality is precisely a synthesis of this "strength, patience, and insight." Many critiques of modernity made in the name of religion have called humans to an incapacity that deprives them of all political will. Entering into a cynical rejection without distinguishing between what can and cannot be changed ultimately relies on an uncalculated surrender to everything that materializes as modernization.

In this respect, depictions of modernization can turn into a kind of conspiracy theory. While trying to explain the evil of the enemy, it simultaneously creates an almost omnipotent "person" who can never be defeated.

However, there is nothing that can be done against what can never be defeated. In essence, where there is nothing that can be done, there is no politics. Where there is no politics, there is no human being.

And where there is no human being?...