Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Behind Closed Doors: Elite Politics, Think Tanks, and U.S. Foreign Policy

Tuğrul Keskin & Patrick R. Halpern

Insight Turkey

In the April-June 2005 Issue

Published by the Ankara Center for Turkish Policy Studies (ANKAM)

This paper aims to illuminate the role played by think tanks in the development of public policy and planning. Employing the framework provided by William G. Domhoff and Elite Theory, this paper explores the role of elites in the formulation of public policy in the United States through an understanding of the interplay between foundations, think tanks, and policy discussion groups. Using the current U.S. foreign policy agenda as an example, we will examine how think tanks are, ultimately, the mouthpiece for the promotion of elite interests in the policy planning process...

You will find the entire article at the following homepage: Insight Turkey

Saturday, September 10, 2005

The Philosophy of History, G.W. F. Hegel

Review of The Philosophy of History by Tugrul Keskin


Hegel attempts to elucidate his theory regarding the historical development of the human spirit. Hegel uses two levels of explanation for his approach; the level of individual self-consciousness, and the global level of human freedom. Hegel views reason as equal to God. He furthermore defines reason as “the infinite content, the very stuff of all essence and truth.” His lemmatic explanation of truth is based upon theological philosophy, and as such he believes there exists only one truth. On the other hand, some philosophers claim that there are multiple truths. One can argue that the truth may change from time to time, or from one condition to another. The truth of the oppressor and the truth of oppressed will represent different realities; they are different. The consciousness of freedom is the ultimate goal in the development of human freedom. Hegel implied that one cannot be free without God. However, he does not talk directly about God, he elaborates on the idea of reason, instead of God. For Hegel, God is reason, and spirit is the freedom of man or thought. According to Hegel, reason is an infinite power that represents God; therefore, reason has ruled the world. Hegel attempts to establish a link between the ‘final goal’ and reason, and ultimately finds the relationship between these two phenomenons within religious message.

Hegel writes that, “I am free when I exist independently, all by my self.” In this issue regarding the independence of human beings from despotic thought, Hegel is in conflict with himself, because on the one hand, what he desires is to free man from his dependences, on the other hand he brings man into the different dogmatic structure that is called religion. Religion is a dogmatic structure and conflicts with freedom.

Hegel employs a very conservative thought process in his approach to social action and structure. Accordingly, the realm of spirit is placed within a religious framework.

In the first chapter in the book, The Methods of History, Hegel employs the methodology of historical approach to the problem of human development. In “Reason in History,” he provides a definition for his basic argument regarding reason and its relationship to both infinite power and God. This analysis also involves spirit and its development in the context of human freedom, and the individual and his/her relationship to the state structure. In the chapter titled, “History in its development,” Hegel focuses on the larger picture, in which change is what leads to the perfectibility of human development. World history corresponds to the development of self-consciousness that brings with it “the development of Spirit’s consciousness of its freedom.” In Chapter 5, “The Geographical basis of history,” Hegel holds an ethnocentric perspective, which can be seen through his division of the world between the old and new world. In the last chapter, titled “The Division of history,” Hegel defines Europe as representing the absolute end of world history, in comparison to the East. In the Hegelian view, the East is only a relative term.

In short, the secularization process in Western Christian World cannot be understood without first examining Hegel’s argument regarding reason and spirit. Hegel’s ideas have influenced and shaped conservative social structures and philosophies. In the book, Hegel reminds us of the Weberian perspective of ethno-Christian centrism, in which religion is the center of reason and spirit. Hegel claims that man cannot be free unless he employs God’s will in his own life and freedom. It is interesting to see that in the Enlightenment of Europe, religion was a dominant factor even in the philosophical sense. For Hegel, universal truth is reason, more clearly it is God. On the other hand, perhaps a more useful perspective might view man as unable to be truly free, unless he dismisses God from public life, because religion is in fact a creation of the human mind. Humankind shouldn’t act as a slave of his own creation as is the case today. On the other hand, Hegelian philosphy is very similar to Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, Islamic thinker who lived in the 12th century.

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Islamism as a reactionary identity

Tugrul Keskin

The Raging Liberal

September 13, 2005

The purpose of this article is to achieve an understanding of the cultural, economic, and political roots of the increasing trend of religious movements. Particularly one must reach an understanding of Islamic revivalism after the 1980's. There is a direct correlation between religious movements and poverty. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Algeria, Turkey, Indonesia, and Egypt have been faced with extremist religious violence since the end of the 1980s. All of these countries also confront economic problems. Economic difficulties have created the gap between rich and poor in these specific countries. Moreover, the unemployment rate has increased dramatically in the last ten years. Education levels have decreased, and foreign investments eliminated the local and traditional work force.

Additionally, globalization has produced a public sphere in which people encounter other cultures. People in these countries are beginning to define their identity by looking at the cultures of the West. This environment has shaped and formed their identity. On the subject Huntington wrote, "while Asians became increasingly assertive as a result of economic development, Muslims in massive numbers were simultaneously turning toward Islam as a source of identity, meaning, stability, legitimacy, development, power, and hope, hope epitomized in the slogan "Islam is the solution." (Huntington, 1997)

People tried to create a cultural, economic and political ideology within the Islamic sphere in reaction to these forces of globalization. As a result of this, Islam becomes an ideology not a religion. Religious fundamentalism is benefiting from this trend. On the other side of this issue, are Western values conflicting with Islam? The question is whether Islam is compatible with democracy. Islam becomes the cultural defense mechanism. Today, in these countries cultural changes are taking place rapidly. But these rapid changes are forming a reactive type of cultural change rather than natural way. Inglehart claims, "cultural change seems to be path dependent. Economic development tends to bring pervasive cultural changes, but the fact that a society was historically shaped by Protestantism, Confucianism or Islam leaves a cultural heritage with enduring effects that influence subsequent development". (Inglehart and Baker, 2000)

The discourse of the conflict is not just based on economic and political differences, but also on cultural differences. Cultural imperialism has also influenced this conflict, because cultural imperialism is a result of the global capitalism. Moreover, Ritzer asserts that "…McDonaldization affects not only the restaurant business, but also education, work, health care, travel, leisure, dieting, politics, the family, and virtually every other aspect of society. McDonaldization has shown every sign of being an exorable process by sweeping through seemingly impervious institutions and parts of the world. (Ritzer, 1996). Tomlinson point out that cultural imperialism is a critique of global capitalism. (Tomlinson, 1992)

According to M. Hakan Yavuz, in his book, Islamic Political Identity in Turkey, the rise of Islamic social movements since the 1980's can be attributed to the tension created by neo-liberal economic policies. Yavuz describes this politicization as a rise of network communities that arose in reaction to and in order to cope with the modern urban conditions of fragmentation and anomie. As the secular nation state created systems of control and standardization, there was an ideological vacuum that was left. Muslims sought to carve out Islamic niches in the public sphere, free from secular state control. Social groups have also used Islam in order to make identity claims and justify entry into political and economic spheres as a result of the politicization of Islamic identity.

The most famous critical author of globalization, Edward Said sees cultural imperialism as an Orientalism that Western countries use to colonize the East and dominate them culturally. He later claims that this environment will have a huge impact on the Eastern societies. There will not only be an economic effect, but also cultural and political consequences will occur in the long term. (Said, 1993)

According to author Jan Nederven Pieterse, there are four currents or forms of collective action that relate specifically to globalization. First there is anti-globalization, then alternative globalization, global reform, and quiet encroachment. For the purpose of this study, his definition of anti-globalization is relevant to the current topic. In particular, Pieterse explores the effects of rapid globalization on populations that are exposed to new global forces, which result in insecurity in people's livelihoods and social realities. Some populations are unprepared to be exposed fully to the effects of globalization and react to it as an enemy force. The author describes this in the following way, "In anti-globalization discourse, globalization is portrayed as an alien juggernaut, a hostile, uncontrolled force" (Pieterse, 31). This view is fed mainly be fear and uncertainty, and its proponents often also hold strong views in opposition to imperialism, neocolonialism and Western capitalism.

Political Islam may be considered as one expression of anti-globalization. Political Islam represents an entire world-view that exists in opposition to globalization with its own historical and geographic arena, its own law, economics, and social policy, science and culture/identity. Political Islam has arisen in reaction to forces of globalization, and created its own structures of meaning in direct opposition to those of globalization and homogeneity. This has taken place according to Pieterse, as a result of anger in the Islamic world over Western double standards and political and social hegemony.

In short, the classical social theorist Mead claims "people's minds and their conceptions of themselves are shaped by their social experiences." (Ritzer, 1996). The social experience has changed dramatically in the Islamic world for the last 20 years. Therefore, religious fanaticism is a result of economic, cultural and political domination by the powerful West.

References:

Huntington, Samuel. 1997.The Clash of Civilizations: Remaking of World Order. New York, NY: Touchstone.

Inglehart, Ronald and Wayne E. Baker. Modernization's Challenge to Traditional Values: Who's Afraid of Ronald McDonald? The Futurist (Magazine/Journal), March 1, 2001.

Pierre Hamel, Henri Lustiger-Thaler and Jan Nederveen Pieterse, eds., 2001. Globalizationad and Social Movements. New York, NY: Palgrave.

Ritzer, George. 1996. Classical Sociological Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Said, Edward W.1993. Culture and Imperialism. New York, NY: Vintage.

Tomlinson, John. 1992. Cultural Imperialism. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Yavuz, Hakan M. 2003. Islamic Political Identity in Turkey. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

AUTHORITARIAN DEMOCRACY

Armenian News Network / Groong

http://www.groong.com/

Review & Outlook - 06/14/2005


AUTHORITARIAN DEMOCRACY

Armenian News Network / Groong
June 14, 2005

By Tugrul Keskin


We have been experiencing so-called democratic revolutions
around the world today. These opposition movements from the
Caucasus to Central Asia, from Iraq to Ukraine, are toppling
the old regimes and their state structures. Inexperienced
opposition movements and their leaders are taking over the
state and have continued to control the entire society on behalf
of democracy in the Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Iraq,
Lebanon and many more countries both now, and more to come[1].
However, no one questions the social nature of the democratic
ideas contained in these opposition movements. Where are they
emerging from,and what exactly do they attempt to achieve? Is
the problem in these countries really democracy, or perhaps
instead the exploitation of the market and natural resources
through the use of these so-called democratic movements. The
purpose of these movements is not really democracy, but use of
political goals to achieve economic means.

The process of colonialization involves many different stages
that take place within different historical time periods. As
part of this, both political and economic methods are used as
tools in these stages of its development. For instance, the
cultural, political and economic occupation of Sri Lanka and
India in the 18th century, or similarly the method of `divide
and rule' in Africa was undoubtedly similar to today's tragedy
in Central Asia and the Middle East. As Franz Fanon points out
in his book describing this dynamic, titled `Blacks Skin, White
Masks,' [2] democracy is a mask used as exploitation by the
powerful. We have been witnessing the neo-colonialization process
by colonialist powers and Trans National Corporations (TNC) in
the context of the so-called democratic structure and movements.
The meaning and the real notion of democracy have changed, and
today democracy and civil society are part and parcel in a
process that serves the interests of the powerful, rather than
creating freedom and equality within modern society. Freedom,
free speech and civil society are the true nature and
characteristics of a democracy; however replacing dictators
with puppets will not bring democracy and solve the
socio-economic issues for these underdeveloped and developing
nations, but will only serve to sustain further relationships
of exploitation.

The recent cases of the Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, and Iraq
have shown us that old and corrupt, anti-democratic regimes
cannot survive by disregarding the people's democratic demands
and sustaining economic equality. On the other hand, the
opposition movements of Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, and Iraq
stepped up and demanded more democracy supported by other
exploiters. A dichotomous situation for a so-called democracy.

In contrast to the argument of some scholars, democracy is
actually a very vague term that is defined in the context of
cultural parameters rather than within a universal pop-culture.
Democracy in Iran may be exercised differently than that of
Western Europe, because there exists in Iran a unique cultural
and historical development of democratic structure and
institutions and socio-economic paradigms that are specific to
the Iranian context. Therefore, we must define and understand
the democratic ideal within its appropriate cultural context.
Democracy does not serve the interests of TNCs, but that of the
people in these countries. Yet, today some neo-liberal scholars
argue that the meaning of `democratic' openness has transformed
into a description of democracy as a political approach that is
unable to survive without the free market. However, the state
structure in developing countries has become dispersed and
polarized by NGOs and their financiers, the TNCs. The state has
been weakened in this way and has lost control over the society
in favor of the interests of the elite or petit bourgeois. For
the TNCs, in order to sell more products, the state structure
should be weakened and tariffs should be abolished for their
own good, not for the good of the people of these countries.
This was the beginning of the decreasing power of the nation
state regarding the neo-liberal capitalist policies. According
to some views, such as those of Thomas Friedman, foreign direct
investment (FDI) and free market capitalism bring more
opportunities and democracy to the underdeveloped and
developing nations. In reality, FDI has not brought freedom to
the developing nations, but has produced an environment
in which there results cheap labor, the existence
of workers without unions, socio-economic chaos, more debt
to the IMF and World Bank, and last but not least, meaningless
independence and sovereignty. There has been an increase in the
power of the nation-state and national borders in the developed
nations, whereas the economic, cultural and political borders of
developing countries have been weakened. Moreover, invisible
borders and the diminishing power of nation state in the
developing nations have generated socio-economic anarchy and
chaos for these nations.

In the context of imperialism and neocolonialism, democracy
cannot be imposed on nations from the `outside.' In his book,
`Democracy in America [3]' Alexis DeTocqueville argues that
American democracy has been developed and constructed within
a democratic societal and state structure, which is by the
people for the people. It took a long time to build and
construct American democracy and the free institutions and
democratic behavior that support this. This was influenced
by the ideas of freedom and equality. Some other scholars
argue that American democracy has developed just within the
last two hundred years. If this is the case for the development
of the democratic process in America, then one must argue that
it will take a long time to build democracy and to shape a
civil society in countries such as Iraq or Kyrgyzstan. Most
importantly, Americans built their democratic state after they
received their independence from England. Democracy was not
begun under British colonialist rule because democracy cannot
be exercised under military or `civil' occupation. Each is
examples of the occupation of both mind and culture and
prevents democratic political organization and idea of civil
society.

It is important to note that the next colorful revolution may
take place in the Caucasus region. The case of Azerbaijan in
the context of democratic struggle is also a good example of
and reflects the power struggle between the puppets of
colonialism (so-called democratic opposition movements) and
the authoritarian state structure. This conflict will have a
considerable impact on the region, because colonialists do not
discriminate between the exploitation of either Armenia or
Azerbaijan. How do you define democracy within this class
of power struggle?

Democracy is neither a product of pop-culture nor exercised by
colonialist powers. Colonialism cannot be the watchdog for any
democratic structure and ideas, because the power holders'
economic interests overlap with anti-democratic movements and
paramilitary organizations, as we have seen in Latin and Central
America. In this sense, how can colonialism protect the real
nature of a democracy, when the `black skin white masks'
attempt to sell their products or to exploit the countries they
have occupied? It is a dichotomic process. We are within a
certain historical stage of human development; therefore in order
to improve our society and to continue along this path of social
and economic achievement, we cannot live without democracy.


NOTES:

1 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050527.html
2 Franz Fanon, Black Skin White Masks
3 Alexis DeTocqueville, Democracy in America


--
Tugrul Keskin is a Ph.D. Candidate and Graduate
Teaching Assistant at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Department of Sociology. He may be reached at
tugrulk@vt.edu

Redistribution of Groong articles, such as this one,
to any other media, including but not limited to other
mailing lists and Usenet bulletin boards, is strictly
prohibited without prior written consent from Groong's
Administrator.
© Copyright 2005 Armenian News Network/Groong.
All Rights Reserved.

Monday, June 13, 2005

Book Review: Irving M. Zeitlin, Ideology and the Development of Sociological Theory

Irving M. Zeitlin, Ideology and the Development of Sociological Theory(6th Ed.)

Tugrul Keskin

In this article, I will review Irving M. Zeitlin’s work of Sociological Theory. Zeitlin is a sociologist from University of Toronto. His book, Ideology and the Development of Sociological Theory, has been published 7 times. His approach is clearly unique and unlike that of other Sociological theory text books in American universities. The book has a much stronger social theory approach, than the more limited perspectives based just on theory. This book reminds us of the European viewpoint of Sociological theory; therefore Zeitlin uses the term “Enlightenment” as the starting point of his approach to social theory, because he refers to Enlightenment as “the intellectual movement that developed within the hundred-year span beginning with English Revolution and culminating with the French Revolution.” Enlightenment is a departure point in the origin of sociological theory. Many Sociologists agree with Zetlin’s view.

Zeitlin intends to explain Sociological Theory from the Marxist perspective and he sees Sociological theory as a combination of both Political and Social Theory. He did not have clear definition of social theory as its own field of inquiry in an independent sense; and does not distinguish between sociological ad political theories. Zeitlin attempted to combine Enlightenment with the Marxian legacy in the context of Social theory. At the time of the Enlightenment, Europe was under the influence and largely the control of religious fanatics in Europe, and Zeitlin traces Sociological theory from the philosophical foundation provided by the Enlightenment. According to him, sociology is science of critique. He makes reference often to British and French social thinkers, and hence, began his book with theoretical points from Montesquieu, Rousseau and Saint Simon.

During the last decade, there have been many publications on Sociological theory, and most of them have their own unique perspective. Each scholar who works and writes on Sociological theory tries to put his or her own ideological background and perspective into his or her writings. Zeitlin’s methodology is also different than the methodology contained in other social theory textbooks, specifically his historical methodology.

The book contains four main Chapters, and each of them supports and expands further on his approach to social theory. Marxist theory is the central argument and starting point of the book, and most of the social theorists that are referenced are either Marxist or socialist thinkers. Zeitlin uses Marxist theory to construct his sociological ideas. There are four different categories of sociological theory; Enlightenment, Post-Revolutionary Thought, The Marxian Watershed, and The Debate with Marx’s Ghost.

One of the most important points of this book is that Zeitlin gave great attention in his work to the thoughts of women social theorists, unlike most other writers. It is not common in the social theory literature to find such as attention to women theorists and social thinkers and in many cases women are not referred to at all.

In the first Chapter, he refers to Mary Wollstonecraft as “a true child of the Enlightenment.” Mary Wollstonecraft’s work is also important in the context of women rights in the 17th century so it is significant that he takes the work into account, within its historical context.

The other central figures in his book include Saint Simon, the utopian French Socialist and social thinker. Zeitlin views Marx’s theory as originating from the influence of Simon’s work. Thinkers and philosophers in Zeitlin’s book, such as Montesquieu, Rousseau, Saint Simon, Alexis de Tocqueville, Pareto and Mosca are more related with political theory than with sociological theory but are given strong preference in Zeitlin’s theoretical framework. As we have mentioned before, he does not have clear definition of sociological theory, therefore combines the works of both political and social theorists. Another key thinker made reference to in Zetlin’s book is Saint Simon. If we compare Zetlin’s work with that of other social theory textbooks, we would not be able to see much influence from Saint Simon’s theories in their work. However, Zeitlin provided an entire chapter on Simon’s ideas, and the part his work played in influencing Enlightenment thinkers in the 19th century.

For Zeitlin, the philosophy of intellectual movements is one ideological foundation of Marxism. Enlightenment created an environment that resulted in a change in the social structure of Europe. There was a revolution in human thought, which at the time was the most important factor that contributed towards moving forward in human history and the development of intellectual thought.

In Zeitlin’s view, the reaction against Enlightenment, particularly in reference to the revolution is a conservative and non-progressive event in history. These conservative thinkers that were against the revolution, sought to discontinue the secularization process in Europe. According to Zeitlin, secularization was an inevitable event of ‘bridge’ in human history which worked towards the collective good. In c7, Zeitlin provides historical details of the secularization process in Europe. He perceives the process as an escape from the darkness of religious authorities. In the same Chapter, Zeitlin concludes that there are two different types of philosophy and sociology; the conservative and the revolutionist types or strains. He categorizes Burke, Hegel, Bonald and Maistre as conservative thinkers.

In Chapter 8, Zeitlin introduces both Saint Simon and Comte as official founders of sociology. In most of the book, he distinguishes between conservative and progressive social thinkers. Zeitlin obviously shows that he takes the side of the Marxist view, and regards this as the progressive strain of social thought. From the beginning of the book to the end, he provides a Marxist perspective, and then throughout tries to find support for these view from many different social thinkers.

According to Zeitlin, Alexis de Tocqueville is “one of the most important social and political theorists of the nineteenth century,” because Tocqueville emphasizes two important revolutions and he wrote of them as critical factors of social transformation. The first one is a democratic revolution and the other an industrial revolution.

Zeitlin argues that John Stuart Mill, English philosopher, was greatly influenced by Harriet Taylor who was “one of the major figures who shaped the thinking of the later Victorian era.” According to Zeitlin, in Chapter 12, John Stuart Mill’s concern was the relationship of government to liberty.

In Chapter 13, Zeitlin talks about Marx and his philosophical orientation and in Chapter 14, continues on to have a discussion about Marx’s relation with Hegel and Feuerbach, and the way that both thinkers influenced Marxist theory. Zeitlin states that Marx’s dialectic method is different than the Hegelian one, however, in that he did not clearly define the Marxian dialectic. Zeitlin also highlights the importance of historical sociology in Marx’s work. Another important thinker/philosopher and businessman in Zeitlin’s book, Frederick Engels has a whole Chapter devoted to the discussion of his theories. It is unlikely to have a whole chapter dedicated to Engels in any other sociological theory book.

In the last main chapter, The Debate with Marx’s Ghost, Zeitlin covers Weber, Pareto, Mosca, Durkheim and Karl Manheim. Mosca and Pareto, both Italian sociologists and political scientists, are rather more political theorists than sociologists. Zeitlin introduces them as “the New Machiavellians.” It seems to be that theories of Mosca and Pareto are more state-related than society-related; therefore it is not often that we find both theorists discussed in sociological theory textbooks.

Zeitlin always uses Marxian theory as the center argument of the book. He compares other theorists with Marx, and critiques them using the Marxist methodology and perspective. The book is historically very well organized, in the way that it contains different social thinkers and sociologists starting from the early 17th century to the early 20th century. The last sociologist he mentions in the book is Karl Manheim. He analyses Karl Manheim’s famous work, Ideology and Utopia, and links Manheim’s work with Marx. Zeitlin stresses that in Manheim’s sociology of knowledge “Manheim considered political, legal, philosophical, religious, and other ideas in their relationship with economic and social changes.”
Zeitlin’s Approach

His approach to sociological theory is based on Marxist view and Marxist theory is always present at the core of the book. Consequently, he accomplished his goal. To me, Zeitlin’s book is more history of social theory book rather than just a sociological theory textbook.

In short, Zeitlin’s stated goal was to explain sociological theory as an evolutionary idea with a historical process and trajectory that begun with the Enlightenment. Irving Zeitlin certainly achieved his goal, because his methodology shows us that the intellectual foundation of sociological theory follows the historical process of evolution.

Saturday, April 09, 2005

Book Review: Discipline and Punish:The Birth of the Prison , Michel Foucault


Michel Foucault Posted by Hello

Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Michel Foucault

Tugrul Keskin



Foucault argues that criminal behavior and activity comes from the increase in surveillance on members of society, and the increase in coercive (forced) discipline. In other words, illegal activity is being based on very subtle forms of criminal behavior that has been defined as 'criminal' through this newly strengthened surveillance and discipline. The activity is not in and of itself criminal, except as it is defined to be so. The definition of criminal activities are created in the context of a social system in which society is under surveillance and discipline not just in the case of criminal prosecution and incarceration, but in every aspect of social life. According to Foucalt, modern society itself is caught in prison, because every single behavior of human being is in watched by the system. This new societal environment has influenced human behavior and has social and political ramifications in the context of discipline and punishment.

According to Foucault, more discipline in a society creates more delinquency. He furthermore discusses that in order to control society, the political power elite uses discipline, and the disciplinary environment that is created by power elite produces obedient masses. Again, justice is regarded as distinct from punishment; punishment and discipline are mechanisms that are independent from justice and used more for purposes of societal control. Justice does not justify crime, but it does serve more or less as a tool of imaginary punishment that does not match the crime that is committed. Therefore, justice has a new meaning in Foucault’s understanding of it. In discipline and punishment, justice is not the main achievement; instead, control of society is the key element in the penal system.

In Foucault’s view, discipline and punishment are not used for a main goal for justice. In this sense of punishment, the core argument of Foucault is that control over society is the vital element of punishment and discipline. Therefore, he later discusses the torture to body has transformed into torture to soul in 19 and 20th century. Foucault also puts power in the center of discipline and punishment, because these terms are the tool of power. Power is exercised through the justice system. The different forms of this power can be observed in diverse aspects of social life and its institutions.

The legitimation of power that takes place through the penal system is a new phenomenon in which the social and political environment is constructed through the use of punishment and discipline. Therefore, the new system of punishment has more complex power relations. Repression, rejection, exclusion, and marginalization are some of the different forms of punishment used in modern society. However, these new methods of punishment are not enough to describe the discourse of punishment in the modern sense. Foucault argues that this type of increase in discipline will result in an increase in the incarceration of the masses, and this actually results in the incarceration of an entire society. We can see Foucault’s understanding of modern society is described in his references to the carceral city. In this way, he basically distinguishes between the old penal systems, in which the body was the center of punishment, and “the carceral city, with its imaginary geo-politics, is governed by quite different principles.” (Foucault, 307)

It seems to be that Foucault sees the system as a machine that operates by itself perfectly, much like forces in nature operate. But on the other hand, if a system works perfectly, there should not be any crime or deviant behavior. Therefore, Foucault does not specify how deviant behavior occurs in modern society. According to him, there is no outside influence on the system. The system is a self-producing machine that basically reproduces itself and has control over society. There are no agents in this social structure, unlike the definition provided by Giddens. According to Foucault, power is the key element of the argument. Accordingly, we try to normalize society and individuals through the market economy, school and penal systems. In the sense of normalization, punishment and discipline are extreme cases in modern society.

My understanding of Foucault is that he sees capitalism as a machine. He also attempts to distinguish himself from Marx and Marxist structuralism. His definition of power is that power is not real, but is more likely to be an imaginary phenomenon. But at the same time, this definition of imaginary power has influenced every aspect of social and political life. The power he describes is very much real, and is used by the power elite similar to the process described by Wright Mills. Foucault claims that our consciousness has changed. He also implies that the target of punishment has transformed from the body to the soul. In modern society, the soul of society is under the control of a machine he refers to as capitalism. However, today the system is more complex than ever and historical processes have acted upon and further strengthened the system/machine. Foucault claims that a person can only be an individual up to a certain level, because after this point, their behavior is under the control of this system.

The establishment of the carceral system is the new form of discipline and punishment. This new process or system is based upon the redefinition of criminal behavior in modern society. This definition describes criminality as the surveillance of an entire society. Exclusion, marginalization, rejection and repression occur in the carceral system. The new system has stronger limitations on human freedom and behavior. It creates artificial identities and defines artificial criminal behaviors. Foucault stresses that there have been enormous changes in the penal system, and that this represents a humanization in the treatment of criminals. His perspective on the normalization of the penal system, from torture of the body to torture of the soul, provides a new system of the rationalization of punishment.
Foucault clearly describes the existence of a resemblance between prisons and modern institutions. “Foucault asks rhetorically, it is surprising that prisons resemble factories, schools, barracks, hospitals, which all resemble prisons? In the end, Foucault sees the development of carceral system in which discipline is transported from the penal institutions to the entire social body.”

Foucault uses the term ‘Panacticon’, that is a technological observation of prisoners. The idea of Panacticon in the modern society involves an observation that there exists an entire society as prison guards that monitor prisoners in cells. Technological advancements maintain an environment in which Panacticon is an imaginary observation for the entire society. Cameras, radars, and metal detectors at Airports are the some of form of Panacticons. The key role of the Panacticon is to control and discipline society. Therefore, according to Foucault, earlier societies had more inherent freedom than modern societies, because every aspect of life is under the control and observation of Panacticon.

In short, according to Foucault, there exist common elements in today’s society to that of the 17 and 18th centuries. Today’s modern societies are under the control and rule of the power elite. Besides the acts of prison sentencing and jail, the individual is controlled in every aspect of his social life; in the school environment, through the work environment and even the football game. He does not pay attention to the role of power elite. Power is instead viewed as an imaginary mechanism that is not used by any group or institution, but is more likely to exist as a self-controlled mechanism. Basically, Foucault disregards the role of the elite in modern society. In his book, Discipline Punishment, Foucault provides an explanation and historical overview of punishment in the context of the power relations that are used to control society.

Monday, March 21, 2005

Interview with Prof. Robert Jensen

By Tugrul Keskin

Robert Jensen is a tenure Professor at University of Texas. He finished his Ph.D. in media law and ethics at the University of Minnesota. Prior to his academic career, he worked as a professional journalist for a decade. In addition to teaching and research, Jensen writes for popular media, both alternative and mainstream. His opinion and analytic pieces on such subjects as foreign policy, politics, and race have appeared in papers around the country. He also is involved in a number of activist groups working against U.S. military and economic domination of the rest of the world. Jensen is the author of Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity, Freeing the First Amendment: Critical Perspectives on Freedom of Expression, and many other books and articles.

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/home.htm


Prof. Robert Jensen Posted by Hello


Tugrul Keskin: Do you think US foreign policy toward the Islamic World or the Third World has changed especially after Bush administration came to the White House. Or has US foreign policy never changed and basically has always been like this toward the Third World countries-that reminds me the British colonialist policies in the 18 and 19th century.

Robert Jensen: The broad outlines of U.S. foreign policy since WWII have remained unchanged: A desire to deepen and extend U.S. power around the world, especially in the most strategically crucial regions such as the energy-rich Middle East; always with an eye on derailing the attempts of any Third World society to pursue a course of independent development outside the U.S. sphere; and containing the possibility of challenges to U.S. hegemony from other powerful states. The Bush administration policy is a departure from recent policy in terms of strategy and tactics, and perhaps also in the intensity of ideological fanaticism. The Bush National Security Strategy outlined in 2002 is breathtaking in its assertion of U.S. dominance and rejection of any possible challenge. The post 9/11 attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq show the willingness of the administration to use large-scale violence to achieve that. None of this is unprecedented; all of it is dangerous and disturbing.

Keskin: If the policy has not been different from the past, then who is actually responsible for forming US foreign policy; the past and current administrations, the Pentagon, corporate America, neo-cons, or others?

Jensen: U.S. foreign policy is shaped by a variety of interests: Politicians with certain ideological commitments, military leadership with certain interests in preserving their power, and corporations with the always-central goal of maximizing profit. Those groups are not monolithic. Sometimes they will have conflicts, internally and among the groups. Sometimes ideologically fanatical civilian leadership will want to pursue wars that military leaders don't want (such as a possible U.S. attack on Iran). Sometimes the interests of one sector of the corporate world might clash with another sector. But in general, U.S. foreign policy serves the goal of allowing corporations, primarily U.S.-based corporations, to make the most profit through domination of the Third World and containment of challenges from other power centers (Europe, Japan, China). That means securing markets with the most favorable terms, allowing corporations to exploit labor abroad, and shoring up the dollar.

Keskin: Since the November 2000 election there have been negative changes in the American Universities. Free speech and freedom of thought are ignored; and academicians are frightened to speak out against the anti-democratic political structure. If I remember correctly, you are the first academician to face some difficulties of this kind, and more recently Ward Churchill from the University of Colorado is facing the same type of freedom of speech issues. Could you please tell us about your experience regarding academic ‘freedom’, and do you think that American academia is loosing its values of free speech?

Jensen: After 9/11 I was sharply criticized by administrators at my university. It had no effect on my conduct; I continued to speak out. But it no doubt did scare some people into silence. That's the tactic these days: We have extensive legal guarantees of free speech in the United States, but the people in power try to create a climate of fear to keep people quiet. There are some current threats to the system of tenure in the universities and academic freedom, but most of the threat to free speech is more subtle, in terms of the social pressures.

Keskin: Dr. Jensen, a foremost conservative Pat Buchanan wrote an article, entitled "Whose War," and in the article he criticizes the Bush administration. What are the main differences between the neoconservatives such as Wolfowitz and Perle; and conservatives such as Pat Buchanan? What is happening in the conservative ideology?

Jensen: Pat Buchanan is often referred to as a "paleo-conservative," someone harking back to an earlier view of the world that is isolationist and reactionary. Buchanan opposed the Iraq war, but on very different grounds than leftists. His disagreements with the neoconservatives are mostly about tactics and strategy. Both groups agree that the U.S. should dominate the world, though they disagree about how to go about it.

Keskin: What do you think about how the US media has handled or covered the Iraq War?

Jensen: In a word, it is horrible, this is a failure of US journalism. Before, during and after the war, mainstream commercial journalists have failed to provide the critical analysis, independent reporting, and the diverse range of opinions necessary for the American public to evaluate the Bush administration’s claims about the war. After the hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction came up empty, Bush was forced to appoint a commission to study the "intelligence failures" in the run-up to war. As journalists pursued that story, some argued that the press had finally stepped into its role as the proverbial watchdog on power. But journalists continue to allow officials to define and shape the news in ways that keep US readers and viewers in the dark, just as they were before and during the war. The paradox of US journalism is that a press which operates free of direct governmental control produces news that routinely reproduces the conventional wisdom of a narrow power elite. Coverage of the Iraq war highlights two of the key reasons. First, the majority of US journalists are unable to transcend the limiting effects of the ideology of American exceptionalism - the notion that the United States is the ultimate embodiment of democracy and goes forward in the world as a benevolent champion of freedom, not as another great power looking to expand its influence around the world. Uncritical acceptance of this ideology permeates mainstream US coverage; even 'critical' reporting usually tends to take it as a given. Second, journalists are trapped by the routines of "objective journalism", the most central of which is the slavish reliance on "official sources". Unfortunately, most US journalists continue to read from the Bush administration’s script.

Saturday, March 12, 2005

Interview with Ruzi Nazar - Turkish

Ruzi Nazar Ile Turkistan Uzerine Sohbet

Tugrul Keskin

8 Mart 2005


Ruzi Nazar Posted by Hello

Falls Church
Virginia



Herhalde Ruzi Nazar ismi Turkiye Orta Asya ve bilhassa soguk savas donemi icinde onemli cagrisimlar yaptirir. Bu cagrisim Ruzi beyin yasayan bir tarih olmasindan kaynaklandigida soylenebilir. Ikinci dunya savasinda Nazi Almanyasinin yaninda Sovyetlere karsi savasan Turkistan lejyonundan New York’a uzanan, 1955 yilinda Amerikan vatandasi olmasi ile birlikte Washington’a cagrilan ve CIA’de calismaya baslayan Nazar, daha sonra 1959 yilindan 1969 yilina kadar Turkiye’de Amerikan elciginde calismaya baslar. Nazar Turkiye ve Amerika tarihinin Turk Amerikan iliskileri acisindan onemli asamalarinda gorev yapmis olmasi acisinda ayri bir onem arzeder. Ruzi Nazar 1917 yilinda Uzbekistan’in Mergilan sehrinde dunyaya geldi, daha sonra ilk, orta lise egitimini Uzbekistan’da aldiktan sonra, Taskent’e universite egitim icin gider. Universiteyi bitirdikten sonra Sovyet sistemi geregi calismak icin Ukrayna’nin Odessa sehrine gider ve boylece kendi deyimi ile degisik bir dunyaya yani siyaset dunyasina girmis olur. Ruzi bey kendi hatiralarini kaleme aldigi 300 sayfalik bir kitabinin yakinda yayinlanacaginida soyledi.

Keskin: Ruzi bey o donem itibari, sizinde bildiginiz gibi Sovyetlerde yasanan Ekim devrimi ile baglantili olarak Turkistan’daki bagimsizlik mucadelesini nasil degerlendiriyorsunuz, yani sizin tecrubelerinize gore Turkistan bagimsizlik tarihi aslinda Sovyetleri ve devrimi darbelemek icin mi ortaya cikarildi yoksa gercekten Turkistan’in bagimsizligi icin mucadele veren insanlar samimi olarak Turan davasina inanan insanlarmiydi?

Ruzi Nazar: Turkistan’in bagimsizligi dusuncesi ne Ekim devrimi ile ne de ona karsi cikti, aslinda Carlik Rusyasinda da, Sovyetler doneminde de ezilenler yine Turkistanlilardir. Bu dusuncenin kokleri daha eskilere dayanir. Mesela Basmacilar hareketinin ortaya cikisi 1917 yilinin Aralik ayinda olmustur. Turkistanlilar bir hukumet kurmak icin biraraya gelmislerdir. Bunlarin bir kismi Sovyet ordusunun yollari kesmesi uzerine Kazaklar haricindeki Turkistanlilar Uzbekistan’da bulunan Fergana vadisindaki Kokand sehrinde Turkistan Muhtariyet Hukumetini kurmuslardir. Kazaklar ise Orenburg sehrinde Alasor Muhtariyet hukumetini 6 Aralik 1917 yilinda kurdular. Bu iki hukumette ayri yerlerde kurulmasina ragmen ayni amaclar icin benzer dusunceye sahip insanlar tarafindan kuruldu. Bu iki kuruktayinda amaci bagimsiz Turkistan’i olusturmakti. Iste bu yuzden her iki kurultayinda disisleri bakani Mustafa Cokay’di. Uzbekistan’da o yillarda Carlik Rusyasina ait iki Ermeni taburu vardi. Bu Ermeni taburlari ve bir kisim Kizilordu askerleri bu iki kurultayi duzenleyen kisilerin uzerine gonderildi ve cok kanli catismalar yasandi. Iste siyasi baglamda Basmacilik hareketi bu olaylar neticesinde Kucuk Erges liderliginde baslatildi. Kucuk Erges Fergana vadisinde Turkistanlilari orgutleyerek bu hareketi baslatti, daha sonra yerine agbisi geldi.

Keskin: Peki Sovyet devrimi sonrasi Sultan Galiyev’in etkili olmasi ile Turkistan’da bir degisim beklenmiyormuydu?

Ruzi Nazar: Sultan Galiyev marksistti, ilk onceleri milliyetciligi reddediyordu fakat daha sonra Sovyetlerde Milliyetler komitesinden Stalin’in yardimcisi oldu. Hukumette bulundugu donemde Turkistanlilari korumaya basladigi andan itibaren yonetim ve bilhassa Lenin’in vefati ve Stalin’in iktidari ile arasi bozuldu. Galiyev Tatar’di ve Carlik Rusyasina karsi Lenin’le birlikte hareket etmisti, fakat daha sonralari bilhassa Stalin doneminde dus kirikligi yasamasi O’nun yonetimden uzaklastirdi.

Keskin: O yillarda Turkistan milli mucadalesi sadece Orta Asya’da mi vardi yoksa baska Turk illerinde de bagimsizlik ve ozgurluk mucadeleleri olusmaktamiydi?

Ruzi Nazar: Turkistan milli mucadelesi sadece Turkistan’da degil fakat butun Turk toplumlarinda baslamisti, Azerbaycan, Tataristan, Kuzey kafkaslarda kisacasi heryerde baslamisti. Bu sirada Kafkaslarda dort ayri milli devlet kuruldu, bunlar Azerbaycan Kuzey Kafkas, Gurcistan veErmernistan. Bu devletler mustakil devletlerdi. 1917 yilinda kurulan bu devletler uc sene ayakta kalabildi ve akabinde Sovyet isgaline ugradi. Ermeniler kendisi Sovyetler ile birlesti. 1930 yillarinda biz kucukken Kokand Turkistan Cumhuriyetine karsi Sovyet rejimi tarafindan yazilmis yazilari ben orta okul ve lisede iken okurduk ve bunlari anne ve babamiza sorardik, acaba dogru mu diye.
Ben Teknikom adli meslek lisesinde talebe iken, Turkistan adli gizli bir mecmua elden ele dolasirdi ve bizde bu mecmuayi okurduk. Bu mecmua Berlin’de basiliyordu, Turkiye’ye getiriliyordu daha sonra ise Afganistan’a daha sonra ise Dogu Turkistan uzerinden Uzbekistan’a ulastiriliyordu. Sonradan ogrendik ki bu dergiyi Afganistan’daki Turkler sisenin icine koyuyorlar uzerini mumla kapatiyorlar, akabinde Amu Derya nehrine atiyorlardi, cunku bu nehir Afganistan uzerinde Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan ve Kazakistan’a akiyordu, bu derginin dagitim usullerinden birisiydi.

Keskin: Ruzi bey peki bu dergiyi o donem itibari ile kim fianse ediyordu, yani derginin arkasinda Sovyetler ve devrim karsiti bir gucmu vardi?

Ruzi Nazar: Hayir, bu dergi tamamen Almanya’da ogrenci olarak bulunan Turkistanli ogrenciler tarafindan cikariliyor ve finansmani onlar tarafindan saglaniyordu. Amerika’nin o donemde Turkistan ile ilgili yoktu. Basmacilik hareketi 1930 senesine kadar devam etti. Aralik 1917’ide Mustafa Cokay, Kokand Muhtariyeti dustukten sonra, Kazak collerine kacti, daha sonra buyuk zorluklar cekerek Kafkaslara gecti, Gurcustan’in merkezi Tiblis’e geldi ve oraya yerlesti. Cokay Tiblis’te bir azadlik dergisi cikarmaya basladi. 1920 yilinda Sovyetler Gurcistan’i isgal ettiginde, Gurcustan hukumeti ile birlikte Turkiye uzerinden gecerek Fransa’da Paris’e yerlestiler. Biz Turkistanlilar Avrupa’da o yillarda cok azdik. Buhara emirligi 1922 yilinda yikildi ve Buhara Halk Cumhuriyeti teskil oldu. Bu Cumhuriyetin egitim bakani Fitrat bey’in tesebbusu ile Turkistan’dan 100’e yakin kabiliyetli, egitimli gencler 1923 yilinda Almanya okumaya gonderildi.Bu talebeler Almanya’nin cesitli universitelerine yerlestiler. Buhara Cumhuriyeti bu ogrencilerin harcamalari icin Alman Reich bankasina altin paralar verdi. 1933 yilina kadar ogrenciler rahat bir sekilde okudular. Bu talebelerin yardimi ile Mustafa Cokay Berlin’de Yas (Genc) Turkistan dergisini cikartmaya basladi. Bu derginin Turkistan’da milliyetciligin gelismesinde buyuk rolu oldu. Bazen Mustafa Cokay ve ogrenciler kucuk brosurler basarak bunlarida Turkistan’a gonderiyorlardi. Ogrencilerin bir kismi maddi acidan zor duruma dusunce Polonya hukumeti bu ogrencilere Prometeus vasitasi ile yardim etmeye basladi. 1939 yilinda Almanya, Polonya’ya hucum etti. Bu ogrencilerin buyuk bir cogunlugu Turkiye’ye goc etmek zorunda kaldilar. 1941 yilinda Almanya ile Sovyetler savasa basladigi sirada Avrupa’da iki Turkistanli vardi, birisi Mustafa Cokay Paris’te ve digeri ise Turkiye’ye gitmeyen Uzbekistan’li ogrenci Veli Kayim, O’da Berlin’deydi. Bizim liderimiz o donemde Mustafa Cokay’di. Ben o zamanlar Ukrayna’nin Odessa sehrindeydim. Sovyetler ile Almanlar savasirken Sovyet ordusu icinde bulunan Turkistanlilar Almanlarin tarafina savasmadan gecmekteydiler. Birinci dunya savasinda Almanya ve Turk subaylari Turkistan taburu kurdular. Buna benzer bir sekilde ikinci dunya savasinda Almanlar Mustafa Cokay’i Paris’ten Berlin’e getirdiler ki Sovyetler ile savaslarinda yeni bir Turkistan taburu kurmak icin bir girisim baslattilar. Veli Kayim, Mustafa Cokay’in sekreteri oldu. Fakat Mustafa Cokay Aralik 1941 yilinda tifo hastaligindan 53 yasinda Berlin’de vefat etti ve Berlin’e defnedildi. Mustafa Cokay Turkistan lejyonu kurulusunu gormedi. Cokay’in yerine Veli Kayim geldi. Mustafa Cokay’in butun gayesi Turkistan’in bagimsizligini yaratmakti.


Ruzi Nazar Posted by Hello


Keskin: Peki siz Turkistan lejyonu calismalarin anasil katildiniz?

Ruzi Nazar: Uzbekistan’da Universiteyi bitirdikten sonra Odesa’ya geldim, 1941 yilinda trenle Romanya uzerinden Almanya’ya gectim. Bu seyahata Almanlar yardim etti. 1943 yilinin basinda Turkistan lejyonunda calismaya basladim. Iki yerde Turkistan lejyonu vardi, birincisi Polonyan’nin Legyonava sehrinde, ikincisi Praskruf adli Ukrayna sehrinde kuruldu. Ben Praskruf sehrindeki lejyonda kampanya baskani olarak calismaya basladim. Daha sonra cepheye gittim, Ruslara karsi carpistik ve orada yaralandim.Agir yaralandigim icin cepheden ayrilmak zorunda kaldim. Almanlarin kurdugu lejyonlar icinde Azerbaycan, Tatar, Gurcistan, Kuzey kafkas lejyonlari vardi. Almanya ile Fransa sinirinda kurulu bulunan lejyoner okulunda calismaya basladim. Beni bu okula Alman Kara kuvvetleri gondermisti. 1944 senesinde beni Berlin’e cagirdilar ve Alman Kara Kuvvetlerinde lejyon birliklerinin irtibat subayi oldum. Ikinci dunya savasinin bitimi ile 1945 yilinin Mayis ayinda Rosenheim sehrine geldim ve orada kaldim. Biz saklanmak zorundaydik cunku Yalta antlasmasi geregi Sovyetlere geri vermeleri gerekiyordu. Antlasmaya gore 1939 yilinin Eylul ayindan sonra Sovyetlerden cikanlarin Sovyetlere geri verilmesi gerekiyordu.

Keskin: Amerika Hukumetinde ne zaman calismaya basladiniz, yani ilk iliskiniz ne zaman ve hangi surecte gerceklesti?

Ruzi Nazar: 1951 yilinda Amerikalilar bana kendileri ile calismami teklif ettiler. Fakat daha onceden de kendileri ile iletisimim vardi zaten, cunku yazdigim yazilari okuyorlardi. Kasim 1951 yilinda Amerika’ya New York’a geldim. 1946 yilinda evlenmistim ve kizim Sylvia Nazar 1947 yilinda dogdu ve hep birlikte Amerika’ya yerlestik. O yillarda Columbia Universitesinde Rus ve Ortadogu enstitusunde dersler vermeye basladim, henuz vatandas degildim.Amerikan vatandasi oldugum zaman beni derhal Washington’a cagirdilar ve devlet gorevinde calismaya basladim. Ilk defa 1955 yilinda devlet memuru olarak calismaya basladim. Altemur Kilic, 1954 yilinda Washignton Turk elciliginde basin atasesi idi, Alpaslan Turkes ise NATO’nun Standing gurubunun Turk Silahli Kuvvetlerinin kara temscilsici olarak Washington’da bulunyordu. Turkes’de o zaman kurmay binbasiydi. Havaci atese yardimcisi Agasi Sen’de beni Turkes ile tanistirmisti ve O’na dikkat etmemi soylemisti. Turkes belli oclutler icinde pek Amerikan yanlisi degildi.

Keskin: Ruzi bey, son yilarda, bilhassa Turk Amerikan iliskilerinin geldigi nokta pek ic acici bir seyir takip etmiyor. Bilhassa neocon iktidari ve etnik lobilerin Amerika’yi yonlendirmesi ile Amerika insan haklari ve demokrasi soyleminden 18 ve 19’uncu yuzyillardaki Ingiliz emperyalist politikalarina kayiyor, tabi buda Turk Amerikan iliskilerinide etkiliyor, siz bu konuda ne dusunuyorsunuz?

Ruzi Nazar: Sizinde soylediginiz gibi Turk Amerikan iliskilerinde gelinen nokta pek ic acici degil. Turkiye’nin cevresinde hic dostu yok. Turkiye cevresindeki bu dusmanlardan cok etkileniyor. Turkiyedeki bazi kesimler bu etkiyi bir talimat gibi algilayip hareket ediyorlar. Turkiye icindeki Kurd guruplarinin Turkiye icinde ve hukumetinde bir hayli etkisi oldugu soylenebilir. 1 Mart tezkeresinin gecmemesinde TBMM’deki bazi etnik guruplarin rolu cok buyuk. Tayyip Erdogan’i beyi yakindan tanidim, ve kendisini vatansever bir kisi olarak gordum. Fakat bu bir sahistir, bir sahisin cemiyete etkisi buyuktur, fakat bu cemiyet icinde dusman gayelerin calismasi bazen daha etkili olur. Belli bir muddet icin kotu bir tesiride olabilir. Vatanperver Turk yurttaslarin disaridan gelecek yabanci etkilere cok dikkat emeleri gerekir. Turkiye’de basinda hatalar yapiyor ve yaptigi hatalari kabul etmesi gerekir.


Keskin: Sizce Turkiye Dis Turkler ile nicin ilgilenmedi veya ilgilenmek istemiyor veya isteksiz duruyor?

Ruzi Nazar: Sizinde soylediginiz gibi Turkiye dis Turkler meselesi ile pek ilgilenmedi. Fakat Alpaslan Turkes’in tesebbusu ile Turk disisleri bakanliginda Kibris ve Dis Turkler bolumu kuruldu. Daha sonra yine Turkes’in yardimlari ile Turk Kulturunu Arastirma Enstitusu kurduruldu. 1960 ihtilali sonrasi Ismet Inonu basbakan olmasi sonrasinda bu enstitu kaldirilmaya calisildi. Fakat rahmetli Gursel bu enstitunun Milli Birlik komitesinin gayesi ile kuruldugundan kalmasinin daha uygun oldugu gorusune Ismet Inonu’u inandirip, kalmasini sagladi. Enstitu daha sonra MIT’e yakin bir kurulus olarak calismaya basladi ve hatta MIT’in kontrolune gectigide soylenebilir.

Keskin: Sizce Amerika bagimsiz Kurt devletini destekliyor mu?

Ruzi Nazar: Amerika kesinlikle bagimsiz bir Kurd devletini desteklemiyor en azindan benim bildigim kadari iel desteklemiyor dersek daha uygun olur. Kurtlerin jeopolitik konumlari cok kotu, bu yuzden bir devlet kurmalarinin pek bir imkanlarinin oldugunu soylemek pek dogru gibi gelmiyor bana. Amerika her zaman guclu bir Turkiye’yi destekliyor. Fakat Kurdler yaklasik on seneye yakin bir zamandir Amerika ve Avrupa ulkelerinde guclu lobiler olusturdular ve genis iliskiler agi olusturdular. Amerika’nin da yaptigi hatalar var, eger siz insan haklarini savunuyorsaniz bunu devam ettirmeniz gerekir. Amerika’ninda bunu devam ettirmesi gerekir, hatta bu yuzden bir cok subay yargilandi hala da yargilaniyor. Bu tip istenmeyen hareketler Amerika’ya daha fazla zarar veriyor.

Keskin: Peki sizin Turkiye’nin son karmasik siyasi ve toplumsal yapisi icin, Turkiye’nin bu geldigi nokta acisindan soyleyeceginiz bir sey varmi?

Ruzi Nazar: Uzbeklerde bir soz var, baska memleketin kirali olacagina, kendi memleketinin fakiri ol, derler. Bunun anlami kendi memleketini daha fazla sev. Ben isterdim ki butun Turkiye Turkleri veya kendisini Turk bilenler memleketini sevsinler, Turkiye’yi sevsinler, yurtlarinin yukselmesi icin calissinlar veya calismalarini ben sahsi olarak temenni ediyorum. Turk halkinin unutmamasi gereken en onemli nokta Turk dunyasinda bir tek bagimsiz devlet var o da Turkiye’dir. Eger Turkiye parcalanirsa Turklukte dagilir. Bunun icinde ben her zaman Turkiye’nin bagimsiz olmasini istemisimdir. Hic unutmam, Uzbekistan’da 1930’lu yillarda ortaokuldayken, bize ogretmenlerimiz Ataturk marsini okuturlardi, “Ataturk gelse bizi kurtarsa” adli marsi ben orada ogrendim. Turkiye’nin Atatturk’un yolunda bagimsiz olmasi benim temennimdir.

Thursday, March 10, 2005

Analysis of the Marxist Commodity Value


Karl Marx Posted by Hello

by Tugrul Keskin

Marx wrote that commodities used in earlier times had only what he described as ‘use value,’ but following the historical process of capitalism, commodities have exchange value. Marx points out that an immense accumulation of commodities is the central characteristic and unit of the capitalist mode of production. “A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort of another”. According to Marx, we can look at every useful thing from one of two points of view; according to quantity, or quality. In his analysis, commodities or the products of labor are intended for both use and exchange. Some scholars believe that Marx’s understanding of the commodity is based upon his materialist perspective.

Use-Value

‘The utility of a thing makes it a use value.” The utility can’t be separated from the commodity, and without the commodity the utility does not have value. Marx asserts that the commodity does have value, because of its usefulness. In the case of the use-value of the commodity, quantity is the key factor to determine use-value, such as a dozen flowers, or a half-pound of oranges. “Use- values become a reality only by use or consumption.” Without use or consumption of a commodity, the use value does not have an actual value in the capitalist system. Objects are the product of the human labor; therefore they do not have independent existence without the human actor and are controlled by the actors.

Exchange-Value

In Marx’s view, the exchange value of a commodity is the second viewpoint of the capitalist mode of production, and in this context, quantity is the main determinant of the value. The exchange value is also purely relative. According to Ritzer, Marx views the exchange value in terms of the way that “instead of being used immediately, they are exchanged the open market for money which is used ultimately to acquire other use values.”

According to some social theorists, in today’s world, we commodify everything from information to the newspaper, labor to the car. This is the nature of the modern capitalist system. Today, given the commodification of objects, things or utilities are all part of the global capitalist system. We produce them and have control over these commodities.

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

Welcome to Kizkulesi


Sundown from Kizkulesi Posted by Hello

Dear Friends and Visitors,

My homepage will be shown here very soon and you will find some articles and pictures that are related with politics, life and social issues.

Whether you like politics or not, politics has been shaping our life and culture since the begining of human history.

About life, I don't think we can say much, the real meaning of life always fascinates me as well as other scholars. I always question why we are here or what is the meaning of life? Have ever question our existince in this universe, if you have not, I believe that you should start to question, beacuse life in this planet is not just based on economic, cultural and political competition, but it should be based on more tolerance, human freedom, and more importantly freedom of thought.

To social issues, as long as there is a gap between rich and poor, powerless and powerful; there will be the inequality and conflict, that we face today.

If you want to find out more come back soon, but I don't want you to forget Kizkulesi is the place where I was born and that I belong to.

My best wishes to everyone.

tugrul keskin

Sunday, February 20, 2005

The Future of Uyghur Nationalism and Its Impact on US-China Relations


Uygur Culture Posted by Hello

The Future of Uyghur Nationalism and Its Impact on US-China Relations

Tugrul Keskin(1)


The aim of my project is to provide a historical overview of Uyghur nationalism in China after the occupation of the Eastern Turkistan Republic, and to provide insight into future ramifications for US-China relations. Furthermore, I will analyze the elements that have caused the rise in the Uyghur nationalist movement. In regards to international relations and politics today, nationalist movements throughout the world have been undergoing a period of transformation following the break-up of the Soviet Union. The trend has been that micro-nationalist and separatist movements from Iraq to East Timor have been steadily on the increase. These new emerging ethnic and nationalist movements challenge the nature of the state and cause a confrontation with state authority. More democratic demands by ethnic and nationalist movements also create more lawlessness and chaos in the developing countries. Regardless of the condition of the economy, culture, and politics, this new challenge by the separatist nationalist movements maintains a pervasive state of destabilization for these countries, which are also dealing with ethnic conflict.

Moreover, the globalization and rise of Islamic Movements bring a new and more complex structure to the ethnic and nationalist movements. Ethno-nationalist movements have been one of the key elements in International Relations today. Following September 11, US national security and its interests cannot ignore the importance of the geographical location of Central Asia and the Xinjiang region. Xinjiang, historically known as Eastern Turkistan, is one of the largest provinces of China, and the size of the region is larger than Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkmenistan. In Uyghur nationalism, religion has always been a key factor of their social structure. Today, Uyghurs are predominantly Muslim, and use Arabic scripts. After the invasion of Afghanistan by the US military, a little more than a hundred Uyghurs were captured in Afghanistan, and placed in Taliban training camps, and most of them were later released by the US authorities. However, twenty-two Uyghurs were put into the prison in Guantanamo. This was the beginning of a new foreign policy challenge to the US and is one that has badly influenced relations between the US and China. Today, Uyghur nationalism consists of religious elements and a secular structure. Unfortunately, the religious components in Uyghur nationalism are overwhelmingly dominant. The current conflict among Uyghur associations outside of China is a good example of the position of Uyghurs, who are at the beginning of this split. If the current conflict continues, then the Uyghur Nationalist movement will be divided.

According to the theory of nationalism and ethnicity, and with some exceptions, nationalist movements usually have a secular structure under normal circumstances. For instance, modern Kurdish and Turkish nationalisms are important examples of secular movements. However, there is always a diverse structure within nationalist movements, therefore religion and nationalism go together. They overlap on many subjects; consequently in some instances it is hard to separate religion from nationalism. Uyghur nationalism is one of the important examples of nationalism that exists as a combination between religion and secular nationalistic ideas, especially in the last decade.

Uyghurs are an indigenous population of Central Asia and the West part of China, called Xinjiang in Chinese. Uyghurs have called their homeland Eastern Turkistan. China has many different ethnic and religious groups, but the Uyghur case is very unique, because Uyghurs are ethnically and religiously very distinctive from the Chinese. There are many other Muslim minorities in China, but the Uyghur is the dominant ethnic group, among Muslims with a population of approximately 20 million people.(2) We have no exact number, because after the Cultural Revolution there has been domestic migration that has taken place within the last thirty years and the demographic structure in Eastern Turkistan has changed to the detriment of the Uyghur population. Within the next ten to fifteen years, Uighurs will be a minority group in their homeland.

The history of the Chinese invasion of Eastern Turkistan goes back to the 18th century. The Chinese renamed the region to Xinjiang in 1884, a name that means ‘new land.’ In 1946, the Eastern Turkistan Republic was established, and Isa Yusuf Alptekin became the president of the Republic until another Chinese invasion took place in 1949. Finally, the leaders of the Eastern Turkistan republic escaped from the region through Pakistan and India. The USSR and China agreed to control the border between Xinjiang and the neighboring region, Central Asia. Central Asia was now entirely under the control of the USSR, and the Communist party tried to create a different identity, because of the influence of so-called “separatist movements” such as the Uyghurs.

The Uyghurs in China and other Central Asian ethnic groups in the USSR such as the Uzbek, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Turkmen as well as other small tribal and ethnic groups, also have very similar cultural, ethnic, and religious backgrounds. For the Uyghurs, in terms of the similarities of their language, it is very easy to communicate with the other Central Asian nations; therefore, in order to prevent separatism, between 1949 and 1991, the USSR and China suppressed the minorities groups in Central Asia. They had been somehow successful until the collapse of the USSR regime. The new global political environment instead helps the new ethnic and nationalist movements to flourish in Central Asia. In 1991, five Central Asian countries achieved independence from Russia. This is another factor that influenced the Uighur movement in Xinjiang.

After the collapse of the USSR, religion and religious movements in Central Asia have revitalized from underground. The Taliban came to power in Afghanistan in 1996. In Pakistan, Cemaal-ul Islamiye became stronger among traditional Muslims. In Uzbekistan, a neighbor to Xinjiang, the IMU -Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan also was another important factor that influenced the radicalization of the Uighur movement. The IMU is closely affiliated with Al-Qaida, and is under the leadership of Tohir Yoldashev, who had close relations with the Uighur movement. In Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, Hizb-ut Tahrir has been popular among youngsters who speak the same dialect with Uyghurs. In large part, these are the regional political changes that influence the Uighur movement.

In summary, in March of this year, the World Uighur Congress was formed, and many different Uighur groups came to the conclusion that a united Uyghur movement is a more effective way to fight against and obtain independence from China. Separate and in opposition to the united Uighur movement, other Uighur groups formed an exile Uighur government in September 14 of this year. This second group contains more religious elements than the World Uighur Congress. Therefore, the Uighur movement is made up of the split of these two elements. Today, China’s growing economy has changed Chinese social and political structure. Between the US and China, there used to be two important political factors, Taiwan and Tibet. However today, there is a third and perhaps more important political subject that has emerged, and that is Uyghur Nationalism.

1)Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Department of Sociology-560 McBryde Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061-USA. tugrulk@vt.edu

2)According to Fredrick Starr’s recent Book “Xinjiang: Chinese Muslim Borderland,” the total Xinjiang population was 15 million in 1990.