Abstract:
By the late 1980s and especially in the 1990s, after centuries of repression, “suddenly” Alevism/Aleviness became visible in the public sphere. Yet, this visibility was not limited to the borders of the Alevi community. Since Alevis have been a “religious minority” within the larger society of Sunni population and within the state’s “secularist” aura, they have been demanding their religious rights from the state and this time they have emerged political actors within the “secular” borders of the state. Therefore, how Alevis respond to “existing” power balances, how they constitute domination and which discourses they apply are the questions, which must be debated, and Alevism must be analyzed not only as religious identity, but also as a political identity in relation to the state. In this sense, by focusing on the relationship between the state and religion, this thesis aims to analyze Alevism politically and to underline how it was constructed as an identity in the post 1980. Hence, unlike former postulates about Alevism, it emphasizes the process of identification, the determinative role of different actors in defining Alevism, and Alevis’ self-perception/ self-definition such as practices of domination, representation, and struggle over the definition of Alevism. This thesis more specifically focuses on variation in the discourses of two Alevi institutions –PSAKD and Cem Vakfıbased on the textual analysis of periodicals of these institutions under the basic topics of Alevi institutionalization, Alevi politics, Alevi identity, and the EU. In this way, it shows that different actors have different areas of hegemony over Alevism, there are breakages in the identity politics of Alevis and finally Alevi politics is ambivalent. Within the state’s formal ideology of Kemalism and secularist aura, the discourse(s) of these two institutions show that based upon the determinative role of the relation with the state there is Alevi politics which has two extreme tendencies as integration to the system and as marginalization. Yet, these two extremes must be taken within limitations of Kemalist aura in that borders of being “oppositional” are drawn from the axis of “loyal citizenship.” Besides, Alevism has emerged as “signifier” term, which homogenizes Alevis by eliminating differences among them. Hence, there is a process of standardization and construction of Alevism as a religion and in this process; Alevis emerge as a religious community who demand their religious rights from the state. However, in the case of Alevi politics, there is not “always” direct relationship between the identity politics and challenges to the state policies, and identity politics does not “always” have a necessarily libertarian nature. Finally, this study, by analyzing Alevism in relation to power, gives an idea about Alevi politics, political dynamics in Turkey and secular practices of the state.
