KAMUSAL ALANDA DİN: JOSE CASANOVA’NIN ANALİZLERİNE GENEL BAKIŞ

Dinin kamusallaştığı tezi sosyal bilimler alanında sıkça tartışılan bir konudur. Din ve dini kurumların kendine ayrılan özel alandan kamusal alana dönüşünün nasıl gerçekleşeceği bile yeni yeni tartışma alanları açmaktadır. José Casanova modernlik ve din arasındaki ilişkiyi ve dinlerin modern toplumların kamusal alanında oynayabileceği muhtemel rolleri teorik ve ampirik açıdan “Modern Dünyada Kamusal Dinler” adlı çalışmasında ele almıştır. Casanova bu çalışmasında modern dünyada dinin kamusallaştığı tezini ortaya atmış, tezini 1980’lerde yaşanan dört gelişmeye ve buna benzer sembolik hareketlere dayandırmıştır. Dini ve seküler görüşler arasında mutlak bir karşıtlık ve çatışma olduğunu öne süren sekülerleşme teorilerinin aksine dinin kamusal alanda siyasi roller üstlenebilecek meşru biçimlerinin ortaya çıkabileceğini savunmuştur. Casanova çalışmasında, moderniteye uzun süre direnen dinlerin zamanla modernitenin siyasi rakipleri haline geldiğini ve din temelli hareketlerle kamusal alana girdiklerini belirtmiştir. Sonuç itibariyle dinin modern, demokratik ve özgürlükçü yanlarına tehdit oluşturmadan özel alandan kamusal alana geçişinin sınırlarının ne olacağı sorusuna işaret etmiştir. Bu çalışmada Casanova’nın sekülerleşme, özel ve kamusal dinler konusundaki analizleri incelenmiştir. Casanova’nın kamusal din tezinin günümüzde geçerliliğini koruyup koruyamadığı ve tezini dayandırdığı 1980’lerde yaşanan dört gelişme ve buna benzer sembolik hareketlerin süreçleri tartışılmıştır. Bu çalışma Casanova’nın görüşlerinden hareketle kamusal alanda din tartışmalarına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamıştır.

RELIGION IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE: OVERVIEW OF JOSE CASANOVA’S ANALYSIS

The thesis that religion has become public is a frequently discussed issue in the social sciences. Even how the return of religion and religious institutions from the private sphere reserved for them to the public sphere opens up new areas of discussion. José Casanova discusses the relationship between modernity and religion and the possible roles that religions can play in the public sphere of modern societies, both theoretically and empirically, in his work “Public Religions in the Modern World”. In this study, Casanova put forward the thesis privatization of religion in the modern world, and based his thesis on four developments and similar symbolic movements in the 1980s. He argued that, contrary to the secularization theories, which argued that there was an absolute opposition and conflict between religious and secular views, legitimate forms of religion could emerge that could assume political roles in the public sphere. In his study, Casanova stated that religions that resisted modernity for a long time gradually became political rivals of modernity and entered the public sphere with religious-based movements. As a result, he pointed to the question of what would be the limits of the transition from private to public sphere without posing a threat to the modern, democratic and libertarian sides of religion. In this study, Casanova’s analyzes on secularization, private and public religions are examined. It was discussed whether Casanova’s thesis of public religion is valid or not today, and the processes of similar symbolic movements and four developments that took place in the 1980s on which he based his thesis. This study aimed to contribute to the debate on religion in the public sphere based on Casanova’s views.

___

Arendth, H. (1998). The Human Condition, 2. Baskı, University of Chicago Press.

Asad, T.(2003). Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity, Stanford University Press.

Brzechczyn, K. (2009). “The Forgotten Legacy of Solidarność and Lost Opportunities to Build a Democratic Capitalist System Following the Fall of Communism in Poland”, (Ed. Nicolas Hayoz, Leszek Jesien, Daniela Koleva). 20 Years after the Collapse of Communism, Interdisciplinary Studies on Central and Eastern Europe: Peter Lang AG.

Busy, R. (1999). Reagan and the Iran-Contra Affair: The Politics of Presidential Recovery, Palgrave Macmillan.

Casanova, J. (1994). Public Religions in the Modern World, University of Chicago Press.

Casanova, J. (2001). “Civil Society and Religion: Retrospective Reflections on Catholicism and Prospective Reflections on Islam”, The Johns Hopkins University Press: Social Research, Vol. 68, No. 4, 1041- 1080.

Casanova, J. (2006). Rethinking Secularization: A Global Comparative Perspective. The Hedgehog Review, 8:1-2, 7-22.

Casanova, J. (2017). “Catholicism, Gender, Secularism and Democracy”, Religion and Democracy in Contemporary Europe. ed. Jocelyne Cesari and José Casanova, Oxford University Press, 46-62.

Cox, H. (1990). The Secular City,Collier Books, New York.

Dodson, M. (1986). “The Politics of Religion in Revolutionary Nicaragua”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 483: 36-49.

Farrow, D. (2005). Quel Sécularisme? [Which Secularism?], in: La Religion dans la Sphère Publique [Religion in the Public Sphere], Ed. Solange Lefebvre, (Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal), 344-345.

Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, çev. Thomas Burger ve Frederick Lawrence, Cambridge, Massachusetts M.I.T. Press, [1962].

Habermas, J. (2006). “Religion in the Public Sphere”, European journal of Philosoph, 14(1): 1-24.

Hayes, H. John (1999). The Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. Vol. K-Z, Abingdon Press.

Hazony, Y. (2018). The Virtue of Nationalism, Basic Books.

Kawata, K. (2019). “Secularization and the Jōruri Plays: The Decline of Religious Belief and the Search for Secular Salvation in Early Modern Japan”, Journal of Religion in Japan, 8(1-3), 76-97.

Lefebvre, S. (2008). “Disestablishment of the Church: Discussion with Jose Casanova from a Canadian Point of View”, International Journal of Practical Theology, 11(2), 285-309.

Martin, D., Martin, J. J. (1978). A General Theory of Secularization, Harper & Row Books.

National Academy of Sciences (U.S.), (1984). Science and Creationism; A view from the National Academy of Sciences, National Academies.

Negt, O., Kluge, A. (1993). Public Sphere and Experience: Toward an Analysis of Bourgeois and Proletarian Public Sphere, çev. P. Labanyi, J. Daniel, A, Oksiloff, Minnesota Press, [1972].

Rawls, J. (1993). “The Idea of Public Reason” idem, Political Liberalism, New York: Columbia University Press.

Rechtenwald, Michael (2013). “Secularism and the Cultures of Nineteenth Century Scientific Naturalism”, The British Journal for the History of Science, 46(2), 231-232.

Robinson, I. W. (2008). Latin America and Global Capitalism: A Critical Globalization Perspective (Johns Hopkins Studies in Globalization), The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Sennett, R. (1978). The Fail of Public Man: On the Social Psychology of Capitalism, New York: Vintage Books.

Siacca, M., Federico (2009). “Modern Catholic Teaching”, The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Washington D.C.: Thomson Gale, Vol. 4, 19-22.

Smelser, N. J., Baltes, P. B. (2001). “Secularization”, The International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Elsevier Pergamon, Vol. 13, 786-790.

Smith, J. (2004). "The World Social Forum and the Challenges of Global Democracy", Global Networks, 4(4): 413–421.

Surlis, P. (2009). “Option For The Poor”, The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Washington D.C.: Thomson Gale, Vol. 10, 614-618.

Tank-Storper, S. (2010). “Republicanisation of Religion in France” Religion in the 21st Century. (ed.) Lisbet Christoffersen, Hans Ran Iversen, Hanne Petersen ve Margit Warburg. Franham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, 163-176.

Taylor, C. (1992). Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity, Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, C. (1995). Liberal Politics and the Public Sphere, In: Philosophical Arguments. Harvard University Press.

___