Türkiye’de Siyasal Toplumsallaşma ve Siyasal Katılım Ziyaret Fenomeni Örneği

Bu makale ziyaret fenomeni bağlamında Türkiye’de siyasal toplumsallaşma ve siyasal katılımı konu edinmiştir. Çalışmanın örneklemini Sivas ili merkezindeki Ali Baba Türbesi ile merkeze bağlı Çeltek Köyü’ndeki Çeltek Baba Türbesi oluşturmuştur. Araştırmada siyasal toplumsallaşma ve katılıma bireyin toplumla girdiği diyalektik bir süreç olarak yaklaşılmıştır. Zengin bir dini, tarihi ve kültürel birikime sahip ziyaret fenomeni Türkiye’de geniş bir kitlenin dinsel eğilimini tayin etmesi bakımından önemlidir. Onlar farklı ilgi, görev, rol ve statülerle özgün sayılabilecek bir kültür ortamında siyasal toplumsallaşmalarını gerçekleştirmişlerdir. Yine bu birikimden hareketle dinin anlam dünyasını refere ederek bir siyasal katılım ortaya koymuşlardır. Seküler paradigmanın aksine din, bütün toplumsal sistemle karşılıklı ilişkilerini herhangi bir spekülasyona fırsat vermeyecek şekilde sürdürmeye devam etmektedir. Din ve siyaset kurumsal yapıları gereği bu canlı ilişkinin temsil edildiği önemli iki alandır.

Political Socialization and Political Participation in Turkey Example of Visiting Phenomenon

This article deals with political socialization and political participation, in the context of visiting phenomenon, in Turkey. We took the Ali Baba Tomb in central Sivas and Celtek Baba Tomb in Celtek village as the sample of our study. In the study, political socialization and participation was seen as a dialectical process between individual and society. Visiting phenomenon embodying a rich historical, religious and cultural accumulation is important in that it defines the religious tendency of huge masses. As a matter of fact, they have realized their potitical socialization in a pretty much authentic culture with different interests, duties, roles and positions. At the same time, they have shown their political participation with reference to the religious world of meaning.In the contrast to the secular paradigm, religion continues to keep its reciprocal relations with the whole social system without giving an opportunity to any speculation. Religion and politics are two important fields in which this living relationship is stood for institutional structures. This article focuses on political socialization and political participation in Turkey by taking into consideration the phenomenon of visiting. The question of how the visiting phenomenon provided an input to the political system in terms of political socialization and political participation constitutes the problem of the research. Ali Baba Tomb in the center of Sivas province and Celtek Baba Tomb situated in central Celtek Village were selected as samples for the study.The political socialization and participation were talked with 33 visitors who had been selected randomly from different days between September and December 2015 and were tried to understand the data obtained by semi-standardized interview form.  It has been examined in terms of its historical development and orientation of relationship between the visiting phenomenon in the research and the political system. For this reason, the basic methodological acceptance of the research has been to understand and interpret political socialization and participation in its specific environment. In this framework, firstly, the socialization of the sample in the context of family, school, mass communication and social environment was evaluated. Later, it has been tried to understand the religiousness in the context of the visiting through the same group. Their political participation has also been resolved according to the classification of Milbrath and Goel’s hierarchical political participation level through the field of political socialization and religiousness. Finally, this research, which is considered as a singular case study, has been subjected to a systematic and phenomenological analysis according to gender, age, education and belief variables on the basis of data obtained through problem-centered interviewing and participatory observation.The visiting in a phenomenological sense involves a trip and travel made with certain requests to the people who are believed to have been buried in places such as tombs, attributed to certain spiritual powers and virtues. The visiting phenomenon in the field of research had brought a rich historical and cultural content, exceeding a simple grave visit. Today, in the religious and traditional meaning world the traumas caused by the modernization and other socio-psychological thrillers have brought a different interest in Turkish society than ever before. The visiting phenomenon has created a continuity with a perception of sanctity and understanding which were shaped by an interaction with many different cultures, pre-Islamic beliefs and eventually mystical and charismatic personalities. However, the visiting phenomenon according to the severity of the individual and social crises experienced in the modern period has also revealed some variations that included popular patterns in both structural and practical contexts. Thus, the visiting phenomenon today is seen in a change by creating new universes appropriate to tradition in different social categories. In the modern era the influence of this change on the political culture is evident. This effect is generally related to the social structure of Turkish society and manifests itself as a closing within the sense of protection of the world of meaning. The visiting phenomenon, which has a special place in the religious life of very large masses in Turkey, has created a peculiar structure of political socialization and political participation around a profound historical accumulation. The participants have realized their political socialization in a unique cultural environment. This culture was formed in the context of family, school, mass communication and social environment.The dramatic situations that have taken place in the process have brought the important socialization problems in this environment. The community associations, the system of obsolete values, the distorted hierarchical relationships and the insecure environments created no longer lead to the searching for meaning by them. These people, who express themselves not like politics (27 people) at last, instead of expressing politics themselves with ideological concepts like ideological rightist, leftist, Islamist, communities people (ʾumma), Kemalist (5 people), but rather Turkish, Muslim, homeland, nation, human and righteousness as the concepts and words to prefer to identify. This should be a socialization that they carry out by transferring the objective world they created outwardly around a set of meanings to their subjective consciousness again. It should be a socialization again that they carry out by transferring the objective world they created outwardly around a set of meanings to their subjective consciousness. The visitors have carried out a political participation with the accumulation created by this field of political socialization. They saw themselves as often religious and the visiting activity as a sign of religiosity. As a result, the visiting a tomb could have been a simple manifestation of inner happiness and ease in a happy moment or an entertainment as much as it was in distress in this environment. The mystical attitude which is far from the world that many poor people built around the visit has caused them to put reserves in the political institution that represents a secular field.As a matter of fact, the visitors often characterize the world with the terms like empty, lie, trial, and so on. Politics, on the other hand, had been seen as a relationship of interest, cheating and lying. It has been understood that it provides a political input in the framework that Milbrath and Goel conceptualize as audience actions when we look at the political participation of the visiting phenomenon in the Sivas universe. According to this visit, in the sample of the phenomenon 29 people of the participants said that they are not open to the politics while 4 of them said that they are open to the politics. However, given that voting attitudes in the elections, only 2 of the participants did not see this very important; others (31 people) regard voting as a responsibility in the name of country, nation, country or even religion. From time to time, those who say either that they have started to the political discussions or that they have participated in political debates (11 people of them) are less than those who have never attended this kind of debates (22 people). In this sample, the number of people trying to persuade a person to vote for a particular party is 6; the number of people carrying a rosette of a party or hanging the symbols of the party to the house, to the car, was only 4 among those participants. Visiting people usually provide the political socializations in a fatalistic and restrictive environment. Their political participation is also in accord with the symbolic world of this hierarchical structure in which life is defined by certain rules. Therefore, they had produced an unquestionability of the authority as it is in family as well as political institutions. The politics is frightening for them; it is not interested in them and they should be away from it.

___

  • Acun, Hakkı. “Yolların Kesiştiği Şehir Sivas”. Cumhuriyetin 80. Yılında Sivas Sempozyumu Bildirileri içinde. Sivas (2003): 23-29.
  • Ak, Muammer. “Ziyaret Fenomeni Çerçevesinde Türk Popüler Dindarlığı: Aziz Mahmut Hüdayi Türbesi Örneği”. Doktora Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, 2012.
  • Almond, Gabriel A. “Comparative Political Systems”. The Journal of Politics 18 (1956): 391- 409.
  • Arslan, Mustafa. “Modern Mekanda Kutsal Deneyimi: Kernek’te Yeniden Üretilen Kutsal, Mit ve Ritüel”. Birey ve Toplum 6 (2013): 7-36.
  • Atasağun, Galip. “Ziyaret Fenomeni”. Selçuk Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 21 (2006): 33-60.
  • Ayhan, Halis. Türkiye’de Din Eğitimi. İstanbul: MÜ İFAV Yayınları, 1999.
  • Başgil, Ali Fuat. Din ve Laiklik. İstanbul: Yağmur Yayınları, 1996.
  • Berger, Peter L. The Social Reality of Religion. New York: Penguin Books, 1973.
  • Berger, Peter L., Brigette Berger ve Hansfried Kellner. The Homeless Mind, U.S.A: Pelican Books, 1974.
  • Berkes, Niyazi. Türkiye’de Çağdaşlaşma. haz. Ahmet Kuyaş. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2004.
  • Bird, John. Din Sosyolojisi Nedir. trc. Abdulvahap Taştan ve Mustafa D. Dereli. İstanbul: Lotus Yayınları, 2015.
  • Canan, İbrahim. Kütüb-i Sitte. İstanbul: Akçağ Yayınevi, c. 15, 1992.
  • Çağımlar, Zekiye. “Adana Yöresi Yatırları”. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi, 1994.
  • Çam, Esat. Siyaset Bilimine Giriş. İstanbul: Der Yayınları, 2000.
  • Çarkoğlu, Ali ve Binnaz Toprak. Türkiye’de Din Toplum ve Siyaset. İstanbul: Tesev Yayınları, 2000.
  • Çelik, Celaleddin. “Türk Halk Dindarlığında Değişim ve Süreklilik: Ziyaret Fenomeni Örneği”. Çukurova Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 1 (2004): 213-239.
  • Dursun, Çiler. “Türk-İslam Sentezi İdeolojisi ve Öznesi”. Doğu Batı 25 (2003): 59-81.
  • Dursun, Davut. Laiklik Siyaset ve Değişim. İstanbul: İnsan Yayınları, 1995.
  • Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation Of Cultures. New York: Basic Books, 1973.
  • Günay, Ünver, Harun Güngör, Şaban Kuzgun, Huzeyfe Sayım ve Abdulvahap Taştan. Kayseri ve Çevresinde Ziyaret ve Ziyaret Yerleri. Kayseri: Kayseri Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları, 1996.
  • Günay, Ünver. “Türk Halk Dindarlığının Önemli Çekim Merkezleri Olarak Dini Ziyaret Yerleri”. Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 15 (2003): 5-36.
  • Hançerlioğlu, Orhan. İslam İnançları Sözlüğü. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 1994.
  • İçli, Rukiye. “Sosyolojik Açıdan Ziyaret Fenomeni –Erzurum Abdurrahman Gazi Türbesi Örneği-”. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi, 2007.
  • Jaschke, Gotthard. Yeni Türkiye’de İslamlık. trc. Hayrullah Örs. Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi, 1972.
  • Kandemir, Mehmet Y. “Ziyaret”. İslam Ansiklopedisi. 13: 620-622. İstanbul: MEB Yayınları, 1986.
  • Karaşahin, Hakkı. “Din Sosyolojisinde Ziyaret Dindarlığı: Şanlıurfa örneği”. Ekev Akademi Dergisi 53 (2012): 279-294.
  • Keskin, Yahya M. “Gelenek ve Modernlik İlişkisi Bağlamında Türkiye’de Ziyaret Olgusuna Sosyolojik Bir Bakış (Keçeci Baba örneği)”. Dini Araştırmalar 18 (2004): 89-101.
  • Keskin, Yahya M. “Tokat Yöresinde Sünni ve Alevi Topluluklarında Halk Dindarlığının Bir Boyutunu Oluşturan Ziyaret İnanç ve Uygulamalarındaki Benzer ve Farklılıklar”. Fırat Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 5 (2000): 209-226.
  • Kıray, Mübeccel B. Değişen Toplum Yapısı. İstanbul: Bağlam Yayınları, 1998.
  • Kıyak, Abdülkadir. “Elazığ ve Yöresinde Ziyaret Fenomeni Üzerine Bir Din Bilimi Araştırması”. Doktora Tezi, Erciyes Üniversitesi, 2010.
  • Köktaş, Mehmet E. Din ve Siyaset. Ankara: Vadi Yayınları, 1997.
  • Köprülü, Fuad. “İslam Sufi Tarikatlerine Türk-Moğol Şamanlığının Tesiri”. trc. Yaşar Altan. Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 14 (1970): 141-152.
  • Köse, Ali ve Ali Ayten. Türbeler, İstanbul: Timaş Yayınları, 2010.
  • Kurt, Rahmi. “Sivas Merkez ve Merkeze Bağlı Köylerdeki Ziyaret ve Adak Yerleri”. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi, 2001.
  • Lewis, Bernard. Modern Türkiye’nin Doğuşu. trc. Metin Kıratlı. Ankara: TTK Basımevi, 2000.
  • Mardin, Şerif. Türkiye’de Din ve Siyaset. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1998.
  • Milbrath, Lester W. ve Madan Lal Goel. Political Participation; How and Why Do People, Get İnvolved Politics. Chicogo: Rand Mc Nally College Publishing Company, 1977.
  • Ocak, Ahmet Yaşar. Alevi ve Bektaşi İnançlarının İslam Öncesi Temelleri. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2015.
  • Ögel, Bahattin. Türk Mitolojisi. İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Yayınevi, c. 2, 1971.
  • Özbolat, Abdullah. “Kutsallaşma Sürecinde Tipolojik Bir Yaklaşım: Ziyaret Fenomeni Örneği”. Kültür ve Din içinde. haz. Mehmet A. Kirman ve Abdullah Özbolat. Adana: Karahan Kitabevi, (2014): 239-261.
  • Öztekin, Ali. Siyaset Bilimine Giriş. Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi, 2010.
  • Rençber, Fevzi. “Adıyaman Alevilerinin Türbe Veya Yatır Ziyareti: Safvan Bin Muattal Örneği”. Uluslararası Adıyaman Safvan Bin Muattal ve Ahlak Sempozyumu. Adıyaman, (2013): 368-382.
  • Sarıbay, Ali Yaşar. Postmodernite Sivil Toplum ve İslam. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1994.
  • Sarıkçıoğlu, Ekrem. “Isparta ve Çevre Köylerindeki Ziyaret ve Adak Yerleri”. AÜ İslami İlimler Fakültesi Dergisi 3 (1979): 133-147.
  • Savaş, Saim. Bir Tekkenin Dini ve Sosyal Tarihi –Sivas Ali Baba Zaviyesi-. İstanbul: Dergâh Yayınları, 1992.
  • Selçuk, Ali. “Dede Mezarındaki Sır: Ziyaret Fenomeni ve Kutsalın Tezahürleri”. Türk Kültürü ve Hacıbektaş Veli Araştırma Dergisi 56 (2010): 61-72.
  • Subaşı, Necdet. Ara Dönem Din Politikaları. İstanbul: Küre Yayınları, 2005.
  • Sümer, Faruk. Oğuzlar, İstanbul: Ana Yayınları, 1980.
  • Tanyu, Hikmet. “Ankara’da Adakla İlgili Sözler ve Adaklar”. Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 9 (1961): 153-187.
  • Tekin, Mustafa. Ziyaret Fenomeni Çerçevesinde Dua ve Sosyal Sorunlar. İstanbul: Pınar Yayınları, 2008.
  • Turan, İlter. “Türkiye’de Siyasal Kültürün Oluşumu”. Türkiye’de Politik değişim ve Modernleşme içinde. haz. Ersin Kalaycıoğlu ve A. Yaşar Sarıbay. İstanbul: Alfa Akademi, 2007.
  • Turan, Osman. Selçuklular ve İslamiyet. İstanbul: Nakışlar Yayınevi, 1980.
  • Turan, Osman. Türk Cihan Hakimiyeti Mefkuresi Tarihi. İstanbul: Boğaziçi Yayınları, (1994. Türkkahraman, Mimar. Türkiye’de Siyasal Sosyalleşme ve Siyasal Sembolizm, İstanbul: Birey Yayınları, 2000.
  • Ülken, Hilmi Z. “Anadolu Örf ve Adetlerinde Eski kültürlerin İzleri”. Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 17 (1969): 1-28.
  • Yavuz, Emrah. “Harput Kültüründe Ziyaret ve Ziyaret Yerleri Etrafında Oluşan İnanç ve Uygulamalar”. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Fırat Üniversitesi, 2005.
  • Yavuzer, Hasan. “Hacı Bektaş’ta Ziyaret Yerleri ve Atfedilen Anlamlar”. Doğumunun 800.
  • Yılında Hacı Bektaş Veli Sempozyumu içinde. Ankara: Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Yayını, (2009): 143-168.
  • Yeğin, Hüseyin İ. “Din Psikolojisi Açısından Kutsal Mekan İnsan İlişkisi”. Harran Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 27 (2012): 53-91.
  • Yılmaz, Zehra. Dişil Dindarlık. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2015.
  • Yücekök, Ahmet N. Siyasetin Toplumsal Tabanı. Ankara: A. Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Yayını, 1987.