Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T15:18:53.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Dilemmas of a Search for Cultural Synthesis: A Portrait of Cemil Meriç as a Conservative Intellectual

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2015

Duygu Köksal
Duygu Köksal*
Affiliation:
Atatürk Institute, Boğaziçi University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The altered psychological environment demanded a shift in emphasis from a pure critique of traditions to a critique of traditions coupled with a critique of modernity.

Ashis Nandy, Traditions, Tyranny and Utopias

Modern conservatism, at least in its philosophical form, is a child of what it attacks—modernity. If the central ethos of modernity is a belief in the plasticity of society and the individual, the central ethos of conservatism is a belief in the sanctity of community, kinship, tradition. Modernity's fascination with the new is matched by conservatism's defense of past tradition. It is on the priority of a past order bequeathed by history, and its traditional institutions, that the conservatives base their critique of modernity. The modernist idea that societies can be shaped, molded, and steered in new directions, and that individuals can direct their own destinies, finds its counterpart in conservative thought in the rediscovery of the past-its institutions, values, themes, structures.

Type
Articles
Information
New Perspectives on Turkey , Volume 21 , Fall 1999 , pp. 79 - 101
Copyright
Copyright © New Perspectives on Turkey 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Açıkgóz, H. 1993. Cemil Meriç ile Sohbetler. Istanbul: Seyran.Google Scholar
Al-Azm, S. J. 1981. “Orientalism and Orientalism in Reverse,” Khamsin: Journal of Revolutionary Socialists of the Middle East, no. 8, pp. 5–26.Google Scholar
Armağan, M. 1985. “Cemil Meriç'le Bir Konuşma,” İzlenim, no. 18 (February).Google Scholar
Arslan, H. 1987. “Cemil Meriç'le Mülakat,” Türk Edebiyatı (August), pp. 12–17.Google Scholar
Berkes, N. 1978. Türkiye'de Çağdaşlaşma. Istanbul: Doğu-Batı Yayınları.Google Scholar
Copeaux, E. 1998. Türk Tarih Tezinden Turk-İslam Sentezine. Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.Google Scholar
De Groot, A. H. 1994. “Yalnız Bir İslami Liberal,” Tarih ve Toplum, no. 126 (June), pp. 4–11.Google Scholar
Gellner, E.Muslim Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huntington, S. 1993. “The Clash of Civilizations,” Foreign Affairs 72, no. 3 (July-August), pp. 22–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
İslamoğlu, M. 1988. “Cemil Meriç,” Aylık Dergi, no. 101-3 (May), pp. 29–51.Google Scholar
Kafesoğlu, İ. 1985. Türk-İslam Sentezi. Istanbul: Aydınlar Ocağı.Google Scholar
Koçak, O. 1995. “Ataç, Meriç, Caliban, Bandung: Evrensellik ve Kismilik Üzerine Bir Taslak,” in Türk Aydını ve Kimlik Sorunu, ed. Sen, Sabahattin. İstanbul: Bağlam, pp. 227-52.Google Scholar
Mardin, Ş. 1984. “A Note on the Transformation of Religious Symbols in Turkey,” Turcica 16, pp. 115-27.Google Scholar
Meriç, C. 1967. Saint-Simon, İlk Sosyolog İlk Sosyalist. Istanbul: Çan.Google Scholar
Meriç, C. 1978. Mağaradakiler. Istanbul: Ötüken.Google Scholar
Meriç, C. 1979a. Jurnal 1, ed. Meriç, Mahmut Ali. Istanbul: İletişim.Google Scholar
Meriç, C. 1979b. Ümrandan Uygarlığa. Istanbul: Ötüken.Google Scholar
Meriç, C. 1979c. Bir Dünyanın Eşiğinde. Istanbul: Ötüken.Google Scholar
Meriç, C. 1980. Kırk Ambar. Istanbul: Ötüken.Google Scholar
Meriç, C. 1984. Işik Doğudan Gelir. Istanbul: Pınar.Google Scholar
Meriç, C. 1985. Bu Ülke, ed. Meriç, Mahmut Ali. Istanbul: İletişim.Google Scholar
Meriç, C. 1986. Kültürden İrfana. Istanbul: İnsan.Google Scholar
Meriç, C. 1993a. Jurnal 2, ed. Meriç, Mahmut Ali. Istanbul: İletişim.Google Scholar
Meriç, C. 1993b. Sosyoloji Notları ve Konferansları, ed. Yazan, Ümit Meriç. Istanbul: İletişimGoogle Scholar
Milli Gençlik. 1975. “Cemil Meriç ile Konuşma” (March), pp. 14–19.Google Scholar
Mutman, M. 1992–1993. “Under the Sign of Orientalism: The West vs. Islam,” Cultural Critique (winter), pp. 165-97.Google Scholar
Öğün, S. S. 1997. “Türk Muhafazakarlığının Kültür Kökleri ve Peyami Safa'nm Muhafazakar Yanılgısı,” in Politik Kültür Yazıları. Bursa: Asa, pp. 155–214.Google Scholar
Said, E. 1978. Orientalism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Sayin, Z. 1996. “Cemil Meriç: İrfan ve Hindistan,” Birikim, no. 92 (December), pp. 42–48.Google Scholar
Toprak, B. 1990. “Religion as State Ideology in a Secular Setting: The Turkish-Islamic Synthesis,” in Aspects of Religion in Secular Turkey, ed. Wagstaff, M.. Durham, U.K.: University of Durham, Center for Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, Occasional Paper Series, no. 40, pp. 10–15.Google Scholar