M. Hakan Yavuz's research focuses on the transformation of modern Turkey, political Islam, secularism, Kurdish nationalism, and the relationship between domestic identity and foreign policy.
Professor Yavuz’s comments are quite insightful: “The [Turkish] military suppressed leftist movements while simultaneously encouraging a controlled religious morality that it believed could protect society against both communism and radical Islamism. ... Here we encounter one of the paradoxes of modern Turkish history: the secular state helped create some of the institutional and cultural conditions for the later rise of Islamic politics.” On the international level of analysis, this invites comparison with the conduct of the US-led anti-Soviet coalition during the final decade of the Cold War. In its determination to defeat the Soviet military and its Afghan allies, the US-led coalition (with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) supported an armed resistance dominated not merely by nationalists and anti-communists, but by increasingly radical Islamists. The circumstances and causal mechanisms were different, but the underlying historical irony is striking: in both cases, the struggle against communism contributed to the empowerment of religious-political forces whose subsequent development escaped the intentions and control of those who had helped create the conditions for their ascendancy.
This interview was very interesting to me and helped me understand more about Turkish politics which I know very little about. I thought the emphasis on "torn country" was very interesting, this definition helps me to better understand the meaning behind the location of the country. Another interesting point to me was how the cold war affected the Turkish identity. Islam played a huge role in normalizing religion as this interview said, "in the public sphere". I also find it fascinating how this history has played a role in later Islam politics. This interview opened my eyes to the identity of Turkey and the history that has played a role in creating this identity.
I found this interview particularly informative for someone who knows very little about Turkish history and politics. The role that identity formation plays within the international context is often downplayed, despite clearly being an important part of understanding strategic relationships like that between Turkey and Europe. On the point regarding the new political identity emerging out of anxiety and fear of enemies, I can't help but wonder whether this is actually a new feature of modern identity formation or one that has been here all along, but is only now better understood as such. When I look back on history, anxiety is omnipresent. Whether it's about the market, neighboring states, slavery, tyranny, etc., anxiety seems to be at the root of it and seems to be a key to understanding identify formation en toto.
This is an interesting and insightful take. Do you think there is some aspect in the reemergence of genocide and lack or respect for human rights that emerges from the religionized politics present in both the cold war and modern day? Obviously this interview touches on the islamist iteration but I wonder to what extent the presence of Christian religionized politics in both the EU and USA has helped advance the islamist movements throughout the middle east. This was also seen in the cold war through the US overthrow of Iran which was justified by fears of the "godless communists" where Iran proceeded to become an islamist régime, so I wonder if the US flexing its power in the region in similar ways while advocating for it as a form of holy war will worsen the degradation of political norms that you mentioned.
Professor Yavuz’s comments are quite insightful: “The [Turkish] military suppressed leftist movements while simultaneously encouraging a controlled religious morality that it believed could protect society against both communism and radical Islamism. ... Here we encounter one of the paradoxes of modern Turkish history: the secular state helped create some of the institutional and cultural conditions for the later rise of Islamic politics.” On the international level of analysis, this invites comparison with the conduct of the US-led anti-Soviet coalition during the final decade of the Cold War. In its determination to defeat the Soviet military and its Afghan allies, the US-led coalition (with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) supported an armed resistance dominated not merely by nationalists and anti-communists, but by increasingly radical Islamists. The circumstances and causal mechanisms were different, but the underlying historical irony is striking: in both cases, the struggle against communism contributed to the empowerment of religious-political forces whose subsequent development escaped the intentions and control of those who had helped create the conditions for their ascendancy.
This interview was very interesting to me and helped me understand more about Turkish politics which I know very little about. I thought the emphasis on "torn country" was very interesting, this definition helps me to better understand the meaning behind the location of the country. Another interesting point to me was how the cold war affected the Turkish identity. Islam played a huge role in normalizing religion as this interview said, "in the public sphere". I also find it fascinating how this history has played a role in later Islam politics. This interview opened my eyes to the identity of Turkey and the history that has played a role in creating this identity.
I found this interview particularly informative for someone who knows very little about Turkish history and politics. The role that identity formation plays within the international context is often downplayed, despite clearly being an important part of understanding strategic relationships like that between Turkey and Europe. On the point regarding the new political identity emerging out of anxiety and fear of enemies, I can't help but wonder whether this is actually a new feature of modern identity formation or one that has been here all along, but is only now better understood as such. When I look back on history, anxiety is omnipresent. Whether it's about the market, neighboring states, slavery, tyranny, etc., anxiety seems to be at the root of it and seems to be a key to understanding identify formation en toto.
This is an interesting and insightful take. Do you think there is some aspect in the reemergence of genocide and lack or respect for human rights that emerges from the religionized politics present in both the cold war and modern day? Obviously this interview touches on the islamist iteration but I wonder to what extent the presence of Christian religionized politics in both the EU and USA has helped advance the islamist movements throughout the middle east. This was also seen in the cold war through the US overthrow of Iran which was justified by fears of the "godless communists" where Iran proceeded to become an islamist régime, so I wonder if the US flexing its power in the region in similar ways while advocating for it as a form of holy war will worsen the degradation of political norms that you mentioned.