This article dealing with the loyalty question in modern Turkey purports to study, from this point of view, the relations between nationalism, Islamism, and globalisation since the foundation of the Republic in 1923.
« Loyalty in post-national state » is a fairly new subject of discussion. Therefore, I’ll first of all take a brief glance at some processes and general concepts and will also put forward some hypotheses.
I - INTRODUCTION : PROCESSES, CONCEPTS, AND HYPOTHESES
Loyalty or more precisely the Focus of Supreme Loyalty (FSL) represents the highest concept around which the individuals in a given society agree to gather to build a cohesive entity.
To fully locate the meaning of the FSL, one should :
1) circumscribe the process through which it is formulated and also define the concepts taking place in this process ; and
2) describe the qualifications of the FSL.
The Process and its Concepts
The starting point of the process is the concept of mode of production (MP), the basis of a given social-economic order.
Every MP is realised in a « Marketplace ». This territory, the size of which broadens every time a new (and more developed) MP replaces the old one, is what people each time call « Motherland », simply because the whole process of social & economic activity (in short, the very life itself) takes place within its boundaries.
Every new MP formulates its own cohesion ideology (CI). CI is the main ideology formulated by the dominant group/the ruling class (1) to keep the society firmly together under the set of values and interests of this group/class (2).
Every CI, in turn, points up to a new FSL to reshape the society. The process can thus be formulated as follows :
New Mode of Production ► New Cohesion Ideology ► New Focus of Supreme Loyalty
Here it is important to keep in mind that every FSL is embodied in an institution, which itself is represented by the elite of the said group/class.
To concretise this process, let us take up the European history (an integral part of which is the Ottoman Empire and a fortiori, the Republic of Turkey) from the Middle Ages to our day (see Table 1).
Table 1 : Cohesion Ideology and its Focus of Supreme Loyalty
since the Middle Ages
Phase 1 ------- 2 ------- 2a ------- 3
In this Phase 1, the particularities of the “eastern societies” -especially those of the Ottoman Empire- should be taken into consideration, where, in sharp contradiction with the West, a strong State dominates a fragmented Religion.
Feudal order sprung from the ashes of the Dark Ages during which the only institution that escaped the destruction of the Vandal attacks, thanks mainly to its fortress-like monasteries, was The Church. The latter was the only sanctuary of the desperate masses and accumulated immense wealth through their donations and testaments. Its Clergy, on the other hand, was the only possessor of the unique « hi- tech » knowledge of the period, reading and writing. The Church therefore became the strongest of the feudal lords and it was only normal that its CI became the CI of the period : Religion (4).
During Feudalism, Religion has pointed up to God as the FSL. God was of course represented by The Church, in other words, The Clergy (Phase 1 of Table 1).
As the MP evolved from Feudalism to Mercantilism (5) the Marketplace became much larger because the trade, transcending the Manor, came to encompass the whole territory of the Absolute Monarchy (actually, that was the reason why the bourgeoisie helped the King to found this monarchy by destroying the other feudal lords).
A radical change in the concept of territory
This radical change in the concept of territory, as it always happens in history, had very deep effects on the minds of people.
Expansion of the trade to the outer corners of the kingdom unavoidably took along the common language first, then common feelings, etc. Instead of the Manor, people now started to call the whole kingdom « motherland ». In this nation-building process, where the rational atmosphere of the Enlightenment prevailed, the FSL seemed for a moment located in The Prince (Leviathan, the smiling benevolent monarch of Hobbes no longer received its mandate from God).
But as the process continued from Mercantilism to Capitalism proper, a chain of philosophers with Rousseau as the final and crucial link came to propose the concept of Nation as the FSL. With the revolutionary fever of 1789 helping, Nationalism as CI was finally born (6).
When the King was decapitated, the Nation as FSL was represented by the national Parliament, or more realistically, by the national Bourgeoisie to whom the monopoly of trade within the realm of the National State belonged now (Phase 2 of Table 1).
After 1917, this order of things was challenged by a new MP, Communism that pointed up to Labour as the FSL (Phase 2a of Table 1. This column is printed in white Italics to point out that only some countries experienced it).
Nowadays, we witness the advent of a new MP, International Capitalism, rarely expressed as such but mostly called Globalisation (7) (Phase 3 of Table 1).
This Phase 3 is the anti-thesis of both phases 2 and 2a. Communism, at least for today, exists no more as a world system. National Capitalism is also over (or, will soon be over) with all its elements : State enterprises in economy, monopoly over jurisdiction in national territory, nationalism in cultural life, and most important of all, the concept of Nation as the FSL. All this happens because the concept of territory in changing again : The same « national » boundaries that once created the bourgeoisie are now strangling it.
In this phase, all we are sure of is the new MP (international capitalism) and its new marketplace (the globe). The new CI is not there yet, and can not be expected to appear so soon in this « new world disorder ». The FSL seems to be turning towards the Individual but the question as to who will represent the Individual is yet unanswerable.
Qualifications of the FSL : some hypotheses
1) One question has to be settled first : Why « supreme » ?
Because every individual has more focuses of loyalty than only one. One feels loyalty to one’s family, hometown, work, ethnic group, etc. Above all, one feels « loyalty » to oneself, since personal interest, directly related to self-preservation, may be considered the most fundamental of all instincts.
But the FSL should not be confused with the outcome of such instincts. It should not be forgotten that it’s a concept introduced by the CI, itself a dependent variable of the MP.
In this sense, various loyalties felt by an individual can be compared to one’s sub-identities, and the FSL to one’s upper-identity. Sub-identities can be several (in fact, an individual is considered « developed » only if he/she has many sub-identities), but the upper-identity is one and only and it’s different from the sum of the sub-identities or from any single one of them (8).
2) The FSL is then, by definition, one and only. It cannot be several at any given moment (9).
Maybe the easiest way to explain this is to refer to the following question, probably the best criterion to identify the FSL in a society (10) : « What is the source of the mandate for power ? »
The answer to this question can be, for instance, « God » or « Nation », but never both at a time, because they are mutually exclusive (11).
The FSL cannot be several at a time, but it can of course change as a result of a change of the MP. When the society feels deep inside a conflict of FSL, it’s in transition -and definitely in crisis. This crisis will end when the new CI is able to get the society to embrace the new FSL. Even by then, some segments of the society, more probably some social classes disfavoured by the new MP will continue to be in crisis (12).
3) In case of such a crisis, the direction of the societal evolution (of the change in the FSL) is necessarily forward, i.e. from left to right in terms of Table 1.
The reason for this is simple : The FSL is function of the MP and the MP created in this case by internal dynamics (13) is by definition a more developed one, and is therefore non-reversible. A society that once experienced a more developed form of MP (capitalism) will not go back to an inferior form (feudalism) ; a society that enjoyed democracy, will not go back to and settle for dictatorship, etc. Going back from a superior stage to an inferior one should be considered only exceptional, like in the case of a total great disaster (14).
4) Para. 3 above portrays the situation in western European countries where the new FSL is function of a new MP changed by internal dynamics.
But, the crucial question of this paper is as follows : What happens when a society, where the FSL has been changed by external dynamics (15), faces the influence of a superior Phase
?
Or, translated into the terms of Table 1, what will happen if a country that makes a transition from Phase 1 to Phase 2 through a revolution from above (i.e., without becoming a real nation-state), is « hit » by the dynamics of the Phase 3 (i.e., is forced to go beyond the nation-state) ?
This question is important both practically and theoretically. Practically, because there are a multitude of countries outside of the Western world like this. Theoretically, because in such a situation the non-reversibility of the FSL process described above seems to be seriously challenged, because the said countries show singes of « backwards transition » to Religion, especially to Islam (in terms of Table 1 : Such a society in Phase 2, facing the influence of Phase 3, wishes to return to Phase 1).
The main hypothesis of this article is that such a development is impossible for two reasons :
Firstly, as mentioned in Para. 3 above, MP development process is non-reversible. Secondly, the economically ruling class (which formulates the CI and its FSL) will articulate, under Western influence, with the superior Phase and will see to it that the society finally makes a « forward » transition16 choosing its new FSL.
The following sections will study the Turkish experience and try to prove this hypothesis.
To be continued
Annotations :
1 « Dominant group » for classless societies or societies in which classes are not fully structured yet, and « ruling class » for « modern » class societies.
2 But it must be pointed out that, to be accepted by the society at large, this CI must also provide acceptable solutions to the needs & expectations of the masses.
3 In this Phase 1, the particularities of the « eastern societies » -especially those of the Ottoman Empire- should be taken into consideration, where, in sharp contradistinction with the West, a strong State dominates a fragmented Religion.
4 It should also be kept in mind that Religion (Christianity) was the only common denominator of the feudal society composed of a multitude of immensely varied agricultural entities, called « manor ».
5 For the sake of simplicity, this transitory phase is omitted in Table 1.
6 « Robespierre has been to Rousseau, what Lenin has been to Marx ». For the best account of this story see Royal Institute of International Affairs, Nationalism, A Report
7 Globalisation is a much-discussed concept and therefore, unlike feudalism, capitalism, and communism, it needs further evaluation.
Globalisation can best be defined as the proliferation (EXPANSION ?) of the Western system, carrying with it both its infrastructure (capitalism), and superstructure (rationalism, secularism, human & minority rights, democracy, etc.).
Globalisation today (1990s) is actually the third. There has been two previous waves, both corresponding to the needs of capitalism then :
1) Globalisation of 1490s : Geographical discoveries necessitated by the trade policies of the Mercantilist period that ended up what we call today « Colonialism » ; and
2) Globalisation of 1890s : Western expansion required by the needs of the Industrial Revolution’s monopoly stage (cheap flow of raw materials, new markets, new territories to increase the marginal productivity of the capital, new lands for the excess population, etc.) ; in short, what we call today « Imperialism ». The first globalisation was naturally weak ; the second was much stronger and paved the way for the third.
This third globalisation is created by three successive and complementing developments that took place during the last thirty years : 1) The appearance of Multinational Companies in the 70s, 2) Revolutionary developments in Communications in the 80s, and 3) The fall of the Soviet system in the 90s.
The first development enlarged the marketplace as to embrace the whole globe now (hence, « globalisation »). The second development made it possible to conquer the minds of people instead of their country (and that made it very difficult to challenge the conquest this time). The third (actually, an outcome of the first two combined) practically gave the West monopolistic control over international developments, political as well as economic.
Here, it’s very important to underline once more the fact that this radical change in the concept of territory (marketplace shifting from the national state to the Globe) will have two very important effects on people all over the world : 1) The concept of « motherland » is now bound to change, because the concept of territory is primordial : when it changes, everything else changes for the individual in due time ; and 2) Table 1 set up to portray the process of European history is now bound to reflect World history as well, at least starting from its Phase 3, because globalisation is transforming the whole world into a reflection of the West.
8 Between sub-identity and the loyalty and between upper-identity and supreme loyalty another symetry can be detected : The former two are related to primary groups (family, etc.) ; the individual is born with them (objective identity). On the other hand, the latter two are, at the final analysis, selected/accepted by the individual (subjective identity).
9 The same rule goes for the personal field also. An individual may feel loyalty towards many concepts/sub-identities (family, profession, political party, etc.) just as one may have many hats or may like many men/women at a time. But one can have only one head or can fall in love only with one man/woman at a time.
10 In this context, the concept of « death penalty » through the ages is also revealing. Every CI has so far punished by death penalty any assault on its FSL, be it by burning alive the « heretic », by sending the « traitor » to the firing squad, or by « purging » the « people’s enemy ».
11 Religion can be one of the founding elements of the nation, even the most important one as is the case with Israel, but that’s something else. It’s the Israeli nation that makes the laws through electing the parliament and if the majority of this nation decides it needs more laws honouring the Jewish religion, it’ll elect a new parliament to change the government to do so. But the maker of the laws governing the nation is not the God of the Jews, or more concretely the Rabbis that represent the Jewish God. It’s the Knesset. The difference between the two is unbridgeable : People can change the power if the assumed source of mandate of the latter is the Nation ; an election suffices. But one cannot change the Power if it’s assumed source of mandate is God. Therefore, democracy of any sort is impossible in theocracy.
On the other hand, if a parliament were to change the laws to declare the religious law as the law of the land, then the source of the mandate for power is no longer the Nation, but God. At this very moment, of course, the « right of resistance » mentioned in the 1789 and 1793 Declarations of the Rights of Men and of Citizen should be expected to come in, as a power given by God cannot be changed by any other means.
12 The same crisis situation is also true in personal relations : Remember this good woman (Meryl Streep) in Bridges of Madison County, torn between her family and the irresistible stranger (Clint Eastwood).
13 Internal dynamics can manifest itself in two ways : 1) A « revolution from below » can happen. This one is made by the economically dominant class (es) against the politically dominant class (es), i.e. like the 1789 Revolution made by the bourgeoisie against the aristocracy in France ; 2) Transition can happen by a peaceful evolution process as exemplified by Great Britain or Japan. In contradiction with the former, the latter transition keeps the traditions (« superstructure ») of the old MP.
14 Like in the movie « Mad Max ». The rule is to evolve forward, both for the individual and the society. For example, a women divorced because her husband maltreats her will never marry a man who beats her, unless she dies of hunger, etc.
15 External dynamics can manifest itself in two ways also : 1) The society in question may be faced by a « revolution from above », i.e., a modernizing (Westernizing) revolution made by a Westernized elite against the dominant class(es) of the actual MP. In this case the MP remains the same at least in the beginning, but the elite will try to impose the FSL of the superior Phase it purports to represent ; and 2) The country may be occupied by a foreign power representing a superior Phase (colonization), or it may at least come under heavy influence of the latter (semi-colonization). In this case the MP also remains the same at least in the beginning, but the policies or influence of the colonizing power will come to seriously challenge, through its direct administration or the westernized elite, the FSL of the actual MP.
16 Of course, « forward transition » here does not necessarily mean a better life for the (colonial) society composed mainly of disadvantaged strata. This is, anyway, the whole mechanism behind the « peripherisation » of the Third World.
Télécharger le texte de l'article au format PDF
RSS 2.0