Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Panel – Islam, Sociology of Islam and Islamist Movements


The 2007 Annual Meeting of the Southern Sociological Society

http://www.msstate.edu/org/sss/07Meet/Publish/

April 11-14, 2007, Atlanta, GA


Invitation for Panel Papers

Today, Islam is a belief system that represents one-fifth
of the World’s population located from Morocco to Indonesia,
and one of the world’s fastest growing religions. The
contribution of Islam to world civilization is undeniable,
however in the last one hundreds years, Muslims have been
faced with economic underdevelopment, dictatorship and
antidemocratic regimes, and most importantly, modernity.
What does modernity mean for Muslims? Will there be an
Islamic renaissance? How about an Islamic reformation?

On the other hand, Islam is not just a religion, it is also
likely to manifest itself as a social, economic and political
structure; therefore, one must understand the socio-historical
background and origin of the Islamic belief system, as well as
its underpinning theoretical thinkers and Islamist Social Movements.

We would like to organize a panel entitled, "Islam, the Sociology
of Islam, and Islamist Movements
" and we welcome submissions
related to the subject, but not limited to the following:

Islam and Modernity,
De-secularization Process in the Muslim Populated Countries,
Islamist Movements and Collective identity,
Islam/Alternative Globalization versus Western Based Weberian Capitalist Globalization
Islam and Imperialism/Colonialism/Orientalism



Deadline: DECEMBER 12, 2006


Please send abstract to:

Tugrul Keskin keskintx@jmu.edu James Madison University
or
Dr. Dale Wimberley dale.wimberley@vt.edu Virginia Tech. University

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Central Eurasian Studies Society Seventh Annual Conference (2006)

Central Eurasian Studies Society

Seventh Annual Conference (2006)
September 28-October 1, 2006
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.



Friday, September 29, 9:00-10:45

Domestic Politics in the South Caucasus

CESS 2006 Program

Harutyunyan Arus Organizer Domestic Politics in the South Caucasus

Keskin Tugrul (Chair)
Virginia Polytechnic Institute &
State University and James Madison University, Virginia tugrulk(at)vt.edu

Ledsky C. Nelson (Discussant)
National Democratic Institute for
International Affairs Nelson(at)ndi.org

Harutyunyan Arus
Western Michigan University arus.harutyunyan(at)wmich.edu
Estimating National Identity via Positional Method: Comparing Party Manifestos and Policy Positions in Armenia from 1994-2005

Tuite Kevin
University of Montreal kj.tuite(at)umontreal.ca The Georgian banquet as sociopolitical microcosm

Bravo E. Karen
Indiana University kbravo(at)iupui.edu
Smoke, Mirrors and the Joker in the Pack? On Transitioning to Democracy and the Rule of Law in Post-Soviet Armenia

Khachatrian Haroutiun
Noyan Tapan Information and Analysis Center har(at)noyan-tapan.am
Economic Policy of South Caucasus Countries:Differences of Strategy


Saturday, September 30, 11:00-12:45
The Future of Uyghur Nationalism in Turkistan/Central Asia

Keskin Tugrul (Organizer)
Virginia Tech. University tugrulk(at)vt.edu
The Future of Uyghur Nationalism in Turkistan/Central Asia

Keskingoren Tugrul (Chair)
Virginia Tech. Univesity tugrulk(at)vt.edu


Wimberley Dale
(Discussant)
Virginia Tech. University dale.wimberley(at)vt.edu

Dwyer Arienne M.
University of Kansas anthlinguist(at)ku.edu
Nationalism one word at a time: language purification in the Uyghur exile community

Thwaites Dilber Kahraman
The Australian National University dilber(at)thwaites.com.au or Women of Power in Uyghur Arts and Literature

Klimes Ondrej

Charles University ondrejklimes(at)email.cz
Creating Modern Uyghur Identity - Adoption of Soviet Ethnic Policy

Thum Rian R.
Harvard University thum(at)fas.harvard.edu
The Apaq Khoja Shrine in Uyghur Historical Discourse

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Qana Massacre July 30, 2006


"Those that know the "real" history of the Middle East are not shocked with the recent tragic deaths of so many innocent people. They know that this episode, along with so many other atrocities will soon be forgotten. It is the nature of things that it is always the winners and the powerful that write the history. The weak and the conquered are always the ones that are blamed for all the misfortune that has befallen them."

"The Day after Qana Massacre: Who Cares?"

By Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar

Sunday, June 04, 2006

Marxism and Gramsci


Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937)

Tugrul Keskin

Gramsci’s most notable contribution to Marxist theory is his conceptualization of hegemony. While he borrowed the term from Lenin and a number of other Russian Marxists, he formed it into a theoretical framework for examining and explaining relations of power in society. He conceptualized hegemony as domination by a combination of permission and coercion through ideological and political leadership, existing within the relationship between classes and other autonomous social forces. By autonomous social forces, he means the social forces that exist autonomously of economic relations, which is one of the fundamental divergent points from Marx.

For Gramsci, history can not simply be reduced to ‘economism’, which is term he used in reference to Marx’s economic determinism, or historical materialism. Marx’s reductionist argument systematic removes the socio-cultural, or national-popular, sphere of relations that exist outside of the realm of production. That is, the social forces that are related fundamentally to freedom, human rights, democracy, such as nationalism, patriotism, race, ethnic, and gender relations. These autonomous social relations can not be incorporated into ‘economism’ unless they are reduced to mere products of the economic, which should be apparent to most as an oversimplification. Rather, Gramsci suggests these cultural elements lie outside the realm of economic relations and, therefore, must be examined as an autonomous sphere of social relations. Whereas Marx examines exploitation, Gramsci examines coercion and consent as relations of power, which is engrained in everyday life.

A historic bloc arises when the hegemonic class creates strong alliances within and among different classes and social forces, i.e. a bloc of society. History can be observed through the transition of historic blocs, the rise and fall of hegemonic classes.

Hegemony, through relations of power, produces a hegemonic class. Once it becomes hegemonic, culminating in a historic bloc, it must strive to maintain its position. At different historical stages, the hegemony of the capitalist class can become unstable due to contradictions in the economic structure and/or loss its ideological influence among its alliances, which leads to, what Gramsci called, an organic crisis.

Gramsci makes a distinction between civil society, political society, and the State. The State is simply an apparatus of power, not necessarily the source of power. He appears to refer to the anatomical apparatus, that is, a group or system of organs that work together to perform a specific function. The State is not simply political society; rather it is the embodiment of political society. Civil society is the sphere of all social relations; where classes organize consent and hegemony; and the sphere where class and national-popular struggles take place.

In short, Gramsci dealt with hegemonic power and cultural theory within historical bloc. His emphasis is less materialistic than Marx argued in his theory. Exploring Gramsci’s conception of hegemony, civil society, and ideology provides an approach for examining the State as fundamentally unstable structure; therefore, civil society plays the vital role in history and social change should come bottom to top.

If you are interested in Gramsci's Marxist theory, please take a look at the following homepage International Gramsci Society

Sunday, March 26, 2006

War in Iraq is a continuation of the past

War in Iraq is a continuation of the past

Tugrul Keskin

The Raging Liberal

In his article, the last exit from Iraq(1), Joel Rayburn
argues that the US is not the first country who occupied Iraq and suggests that the US should take a lesson from the British experience. In the context of his analogy, unfortunately it is accurate information; however, he forgets to include a historical analysis of British colonialism at the beginning of this century and its relationship with the American occupation of Iraq. The American occupation of Iraq is a continuation of British colonialism and today is a reflection of the past. Iraq is an artificial state; it has an artificial national identity based on territoriality, as established under British imperialism. However, if we look at the other countries in the region, most of these countries are not different than Iraq. There is no difference between Iraq and Syria, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Lebanon. The differences between these countries are very similar to differences between Georgia and South Carolina or New York and Washington DC.

What are the causes of British colonialism and American occupation in Iraq? To me, there is a very simple answer to this question: divide and conquer; and exploit them as much as you can; make ethnic groups enemies to each other so that they can be used against each other and further exploited for Western-based capitalism.

The British occupied Iraq in order to weaken and divide the Ottoman Empire and to control its natural resources. Unfortunately, like everywhere else, some Arabs such as Sheik of Mecca and Medina, grand father of King Abdullah II of Jordan, Sharif Hussein Bin Ali(2) collaborated with the occupation forces and fought against their own people, like Iyad Allawi, the president of Iraq today. Lawrence of Arabia and the American colonel Noel were good friends of Hussein. However the first revolt against the Ottomans started in 1916 before the end of WWI, supported and financed by the British. There are many other small revolts that took place in the region between the late 1800 and 1938, such as the Kurdish revolts in 1886, 1924, 1929, 1936 and 1938; and other revolts such as that of the Greeks, Assyrians, Caldenians and Armenians (Christian minorities in the Ottoman territory) revolts.

Britain formed the Iraqi state in 1919 as a part of the League of Nations established under the British Mandate in 1920. Rayburn claims that the British occupation ended in 1932. Actually, the British occupation ended in 1947. In 1957, long before Saddam came to the power, General Kassim claimed that Kuwait is a part of Iraq as Saddam claimed in 1991; however, the British government warned General Kassim not to invade Kuwait. Soon after General Kassim’s claim, two important revolts erupted in Iraq, Kurdish revolt led by Molla Mustafa Barzani, the father of the current Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani, between 1961-63 and 1968-70. These two revolts were also supported and financed by the US and British governments. In 1979, Molla Mustafa Barzani died at the Georgetown hospital. His personal doctor stayed in the US and became a member of the Iraqi National Council led by Chalabi. Today, they are playing a big role in the current puppet government in Iraq.

Occupation is a simple method of imperialism and puppet governments play a key role in the process. Today, the American occupation of Iraq destabilizes the entire region as the British did at the beginning of this century. This process of war is in this sense a continuation of the past. What they have done in Africa and South East Asia is not different than what they are doing in Iraq today. Unfortunately today they have power, but the future will not be bright for all of us in the Middle East. According to American politics, I don’t see any difference between Kerry and Bush, Democrats or Republicans; they are both supportive of the Iraqi occupation in different way, they both want to remove Saddam from power. We should remember Joseph Lieberman who is very progressive “according to some people.” He also supported the war in Iraq. Additionally, presidential candidate John Kerry said that I have a plan for Iraq. One must ask the question of Kerry, regarding what this plan is and involves; killing less people, or using more oil?

Some people argue that the Bush administration has no plan before the occupation of Iraq; therefore, these people are against the Bush administration and criticize him for this reason. If George W. Bush had a plan then does this legitimize the occupation? It is a silly argument; we are talking about the exploitation and enslavement of people in Iraq and they are talking about a strategic plan. I think we live in different dimensions.

Today, to answer the question of why the US is in Iraq, the answer is simple: the exploitation of the Middle East. They use beautiful words, such as democracy, freedom, and human rights; but to me, a person who is coming from the region, I cannot take their definitions of these concepts seriously. To me, democracy, freedom and human rights are equal to exploitation and colonialism, because their understanding and definition of these terms are different than what these terms really mean. In short, Rayburn claims that the US should stay longer In Iraq in order build a stable government and society In comparison to this perspective, I would say quit Mesopotamia, quit Iraq, quit the Middle East, and leave the people alone.

In order to understand the occupation of Iraq today, I would rather suggest to you that you read two articles rather than wasting your time with Joel Rayburn’s argument. The first one is Graham Fuller’s article, Redrawing the World’s Borders(3). And the second article is Daniel Byman’s article, Let Iraq Collapse(4). Imagination is a projection of imperialism. In short, the best description of this war is hidden in Nayna Jhaveri’s article, Petroimperialism: US Oil interests and the Iraq War(5). You will likely enjoy reading the articles, and will find clear examples with which to observe imperialism.


1)Joel Rayburn, The last exit from Iraq, Foreign Affairs, New York: Mar/Apr 2006.Vol.85, Iss. 2; pg. 29.

2)http://www.kingabdullah.jo/homepage.php

3)Graham Fuller, Redrawing the World’s Borders, The World Policy Journal, Spring 1997.

4)Daniel Byman, Let Iraq Collapse, The National Interest, Fall 1996.

5)Nayna Jhaveri, Petroimperialism: US Oil interests and the Iraq War, Antipode, 2004.

Sunday, March 12, 2006

Panel-The Future of Uyghur Nationalism in Turkistan/Central Asia

The 2006 CESS conference at the University of Michigan http://cess.fas.harvard.edu/

Dear all,

We would like to organize a panel "The Future of Uyghur Nationalism in Turkistan (or Central Asia)" and we welcome submissions related to Uyghur Nationalism, but not limited to, the following:

1) Uyghur Nationalism in "Xinjiang" and China, 20th century,
2) Historical foundations of Uyghur Nationalism and Identity,
3) Uyghur Diaspora in Turkey, Europe and North America,
4) Future of Uyghur Nationalism and its impact on the US-China relations.

Deadline: APRIL 5, 2006

Please send abstract to:

Panel Organizer and moderator
Dr. Dale Wimberley and Tugrul Keskin

Department of Sociology
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
560 McBryde Hall
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0137
(202)378-8606
Email: tugrulk@vt.edu

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

2nd International Conference on Business, Management and Economics

2nd International Conference on Business, Management and Economics
June 15-18, 2006
Yasar University
http://www.yasar.edu.tr


Altinyunus Resort Hotel/Convention Center
Cesme, Izmir/Turkey
http://www.altinyunus.com.tr/


Transnational Corporations (TNCs)

I invite your paper proposals on:

*Transnational Corporations
*Management systems of TNCs
* Global Political Economy
* Social and economic implications of TNCs
*The relation between developing countries and TNCs

I am organizing paper sessions on these topics for the upcoming 2nd International Conference on Business, Management and Economics in Cesme, Turkey, June 15-18, 2006.

Please send your abstract to tugrulk@vt.edu no later than April 23. Full paper submission May 15.

The conference website: http://conference2006.yasar.edu.tr/

You are cordially invited to the 2nd International Conference on Business, Management and Economics, which is going to be held in Izmir, Turkey between 15-18 June 2006.

We are honored to announce that Nobel Prize Winner in Economic Sciences, distinguished professor Thomas C. Schelling is going to present a special keynote address at the Second International Conference on Business, Management and Economics.

Saturday, February 04, 2006

Seventh Annual International Social Theory Consortium (ISTC) Conference

Theorizing Power in the post 9/11 World

May 18 – 21, 2006
The Hotel Roanoke & Conference Center
Roanoke, Virginia

Call for Papers

The Alliance of Social, Political, Ethical, and Cultural Thought (ASPECT) at Virginia Tech in partnership with the International Social Theory Consortium, (ISTC) will host the 7th Annual ISTC Conference May 18—21, 2006, in Roanoke, Virginia at The Hotel Roanoke & Conference Center.

The objective of this annual conference is to provide a forum for multidisciplinary dialogue between social theorists of all disciplines and occupations. The conference organizers invite paper and panel proposals from a variety of theoretical perspectives and intellectual traditions, and especially welcomes proposals that continue the Consortium’s dialogue among theorists working in the Global South and North. This conference also explicitly welcomes social activists engaged in transforming power relationships at various scales. As this year’s host, ASPECT is particularly interested in inviting panels that embrace in equal measure social, political, ethical and cultural theory in relationship to the conference theme.

Previous ISTC conferences have been hosted in Singapore, Toronto, Tampa, Dubrovnik, Sussex and Lexington, Kentucky.

Possible sub-themes to be addressed may include, but are not limited to the following.

1. New theorizations of power post 9/11
2. Classic theories of political, cultural, and social power
3. Geographical theorizations of power
4. Empire and its discontents
5. National and comparative perspectives on“race,” racialization, ethnicity and nativism
6. Cultural forms of neo-liberalism
7. Non-corporate and corporate models of globalization
8. Islam, Christianity and Judaism as forces for social justice
9. Technology, Science and Democracy
10. Analytic approaches to power and justice
11. Visualilty, media and representation
12. Memory and mourning
13. Theories and practices of civil society
14. Mediations of post 9/11 power: Race, Gender, Class
15. Militarism, war, and the disciplining of national bodies
16. Patriotism and class
17. Discourses on Inter-civilizational dialogues
18. Terror, torture, and human rights
19. Gender, sexuality and Critical Theory
20. Postcoloniality in an (ongoing) age of imperialism
21. Theorizing development and anti-development
22. Varieties of capitalism and anti-capitalisms
23. Global civil society and the ethics of place
24. Transnational social movements
25. Governance and governmentality
26. Radical, plural, and other varieties of democracy
27. Techno-nature
28. Health: Bio-ethics and bio-power
29. Demographies and cartographies of power
30. Immigration, citizenship and imagined national communities
31. Contemporary and historical perspectives on civic nationalism and patriotism
32. Constitutionalism and its institutions

Submission

Abstracts (between 150 and 200 words in length) for paper and panel
proposal should be submitted by February 15, 2006 to:

Professor Wolfgang Natter
E-MAIL: wnatter@vt.edu
Phone: 540.231.5342
FAX: 540-231-6078

MAIL:

7th ISTC Conference
ASPECT
531 Major Williams Hall (0130)
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24061

For further inquiry, please contact:

Karen Jenkins
E-mail: karenjen@vt.edu
Telephone: 540-231-2839

All conference papers will receive consideration for inclusion in a publication containing the proceedings.

Registration*

Conference registration will be open early February 2006.

*Further registration information and web links will be made on this web-site prior to February 8, 2006.

Organized by the ASPECT Program, with the generous support of the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences, Virginia Tech

Thursday, January 19, 2006

How About a War on Poverty, Mr. President?

The Raging Liberal


Tugrul Keskin

In 1962, Edward Michael Harrington, an intellectual and activist, wrote an astonishing book, The Other America: Poverty in the US and his findings in this book shaped the views of American President Lyndon Johnson on poverty. On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a War on Poverty in his State of the Union address. Johnson knew that the War on Poverty was the one of the key elements in the fight against radicalism and extremism, therefore, he made it very clear that the war was unconditional. Between 1964 and 1968, America attempted to eliminate poverty and used economic and political tactics and strategies to gain the support of the people and to rescue them from the most extreme poverty. However, these socio-economic and political strategies have not continued after he left the Presidency and ultimately the war on poverty has failed in urban and rural America, because another war mongering President came to the power in the White House; Richard Nixon. Unfortunately, today is not different than the past.

According to the Census Bureau report entitled, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2003,” the percentage of Americans who live below the poverty level is 12.5% and the socio-economic gap between races and ethnic groups is stronger than ever. In the same report, there was a significant relationship shown between people’s ethnic origin and poverty levels. In 2002, the percentage of people who lived below the poverty level was 12.1%, but the poverty level for the total population in the US increased to 12.5% soon afterwards, in 2003. In the same Census Bureau report, it was recorded that 13.2 million people of Hispanic origin and 7.3 million African-Americans were living without health insurance. In total, 44.9 million people did not have health insurance in the US in 2003.

Poverty in the World may have different ways that it shows itself and more challenges to come. For instance, according to Global Policy Forum, Most African nations suffer from military dictatorships, corruption, civil unrest and war, underdevelopment and deep poverty. The UN Development Program report 2005 indicates that 34.8 million children will die in the next ten years and the same report also shows that poverty and inequality all over the world is a trend that has increased. The inequality level in Brazil is 59.3%, in Namibia it is 70.7%, Egypt 34.4%. In Pakistan, only 38% of all children will complete their primary education, because of poverty and the socio-economic depression.

Poverty is the cause of many of the social and political challenges that we face today. The social and political consequences are related with the economic gap that exists both between nations and within American society. The essence of the elimination of poverty from the socio-economic sphere is a key factor to shortening the gap between the rich and poor. However, as long as there is a wide gap between the upper and working classes, the Capitalist economy and America will continue to face ever-more challenges and crisis. As a result of poverty and the continuation of Colonialism because the power of trans-national corporations by the powerful West, developing nations will face new challenges such as religious fundamentalism; because the people and political stakeholders have nothing to lose but their identity.

Today, we have a different president and a different war than the one undertaken by President Johnson’s under his broad perspective. President Bush believes the war on terror will eliminate or at least minimize radicalism and this will prevent future attacks on America. It is absolutely wrong. As long as there is a gap between the rich and poor, and the socio-economic gap continues to exist between nations and within nations, and the idea of colonialization continues, unfortunately terrorism will survive; therefore, we must understand that terrorism is another ugly face and a further reflection of poverty.