Özet:
The main argument of this study is that the liberal tradition which idealizes civil society as a sphere for the cultivation of democratic values, equality, pluralism and cooperation lacks explanatory value in terms of explaining the complex dynamics and internal contradictions of civil society. Supporting this argument, the debate which was initiated by the discriminatory declaration of the former Minister of Women and Family in Turkey - who announced that “homosexuality is a sickness” - and turned into an “Islam vs. homosexuality” debate with the intervention of Islamic civil society organizations (CSOs) and Muslim columnists, revealed that neither the identities nor the practices of civil society actors are pre-established and fixed. They rather are context and actor dependent. Another important factor upon which this debate shed light is the centrality of power relations to the civil society. As Foucault argues, there is no Power as such invested in predetermined institutions, groups or individuals; rather it exists in every aspect of the social. Thus, there is no essential boundary and opposition between the ruler (state) and the ruled (civil society) as liberal thinkers have depicted. Depending on the context, this boundary might get blurred and the actors of civil society might cooperate with the discriminatory state due to the fact that their subjectivities are affected by the same discursive formations. In this respect, the notion of civil society needs to be re-conceptualized in a way as to reveal relations of power and negotiability of subjectivities.|Keywords : Civil Society, Islam, Homosexuality, Bio-power, Discourse, Alliance.
