The Gulen movement and its contributions: New social movements perspective
byYu-Cheng Liu (National Chengchi University, Taiwan)
A paper presented at the 2013CESNURconference in Falun, Sweden
Preliminary version. Please do not copy and reproduce without the consent of the author
Liu, Yu-cheng, PhD
Assistant Master, Residential College of International Development, NCCU, Taiwan
Assistant Professor, National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan
E-mail:
Abstract:
This article views the Gulen movement through new social movements perspective, and argues it maybe the better way to understand andto evaluate its contributions and potential success. On the one hand, the Gulen movement benefits from economic liberalization in Turkey, and then appropriates it as a way to maintain its separation from politics and Islamism. On the other hand, the Gulen movement pursues universal ethics and values, such as peace, tolerance, and dialogue. These two dimensions make it different from new social movements that are usually against modern capitalism. However, the Gulen movement can be seen as a movement seeking ‘identity’, which constitutes its similarity with new social movements. The article suggests that the potential success lies in the categorization of the Gulen movement as a kind of new social movement, and not as some kind of religious movement or so-called ‘new religious movement’. In this way its contribution can be better understood and valued.
Keywords: new social movements, new religious movements, the Gulen movement, Islamic social movements, globalization
I. New social movements perspective reconsidered
When considering social movements or collective actions, there are three kinds of them: organizational movements, political movements, and class movements (Melucci, 1980, p. 203). Interestingly, new social movements are to some extent some kind of being differentiated from three of them. According to Melucci, the first one makes the attempts at opposing ‘the power governing a system of norms and roles’ ‘at the level of a given social organization’. The second one ‘tend to enlarge political participation, and to improve the relative position of the actor in the society’s decision processes’. And the third one is defined as ‘collective actions which aim at the appropriation and orientation of social production’ (Melucci, 1980, p. 204). Traditionally, social movements are situated in the context of class, particularly working class, whether politically or socially. ‘The appropriation and orientation of social production’ refers to the relationship between those own tools of production and those own not, or between those own power and those have not, and so on (Luhmann, 1995[1984]; Marx, 1887[1867]). To some extent new social movements are not characterized and cannot be fully represented by either of them: they are not assuming organizational, political, or class-based. However, this is not to deny the fact that new social movements may possess either or part of them. Instead, it just tries to give specificity to new social movements that cannot be easily categorized into one of them. On the other hand, there is no need to boost how this term will be so useful to the aim of this essay. It only suggests that this is perhaps a good point of departure when staring from the analysis of new social movements.
Back to the three kinds of collective actions discussed by Melucci, new social movements are considered in different ways. Contrary to the first one, new social movements focus on ‘universal values’ such as human rights, world peace, democracy, and love. Regarding to the second one, new social movements often claim intentionally that they are not political movements, although they are fully aware of what they concern being definitely political issues (Pichardo, 1997, p. 415). They do so because they don’t want their ideals and activities to be contaminated by specific political interests. Again, since the goals are universal, they have to avoid from them. For the last one, new social movements are not concerning with ‘class’, broadly speaking. Instead, they pursue and support universal values, and put them above those pure class issues despite that pursuing universal values do involve in the role played by certain classes. As a result, the notion of new social movements opens more opportunities for imagining collective actions. Perhaps the most important contribution will be that the term ‘new social movements’ makes everything possible, and conversely this ‘making everything possible’ also testifies and gives legitimacy to the initiation and existence of various collective actions.[1]
Before entering into new social movements perspective, it is necessary to brief what its ‘before’, social movements, contains. There are four sets of questions for social movement analysis: ‘the relationship between structural change and transformations in patterns of social conflict,’ ‘the role of cultural representations in social conflicts,’ ‘the process through which values, interests, and ideas get turned into collective action,’ and the last one, ‘how a certain social, political, and/or cultural context affects social movements’ chances of success and the form they take’ (Porta & Diani, 2006, pp. 5-6). These questions frame the content of social movements and its connection to modernity. The theory of social movements concerns mainly collective behavior, and the explanation of it. It in the first place has been seen as a kind of rational, organizational, and purposeful action, through which mobilizing resources to achieve goals. In this article the author will argue why the Gulen movement can be understood in terms of first, social movement, and then new social movement. In addition, the author suggests that it is better to understand and estimate it in this way. Not only will it be appropriate to do so, but also it is politically right when talking about ‘movement’ in this period, particularly where there are plenty of movements concerning human rights, world peace, global justice, environment, and so on.
In his analysis of social movements, Charles Tilly identified three elements combined in it: 1) campaigns of collective claims on target authorities; 2) an array of claim-making performances including special-purpose association, public meetings, media statements, and demonstrations; 3) public representations of the cause’s worthiness, unity, numbers, and commitments (Tilly, 2004, p. 7). Loosely speaking, social movements are a kind of collective action, and they are rational, purposeful, and organized. This viewpoint was what scholars in 1970s used to understand the process of social movements, and gave it a name, resource mobilization theory. In this view, collective actions are calculated, including benefits and costs. It assumes people who take part in it are rational, and the movements are initiated with clear purposes and both people and the movements are well organized. There is another perspective when considering social movements: the political process or political opportunity structure. It focuses on the openness of the political system, such as electoral instability, the availability of influential allies, and tolerance for protest among the elite (Porta & Diani, 2006, p. 16). The political opportunity structure plays an important role in the change from traditional to new social movement approach. The increasing openness of the political system gives more possibilities to collective actors and even individuals to deliver their voice. Mario Diani considers social movements as ‘a distinct social process, consisting of the mechanisms through which actors engaged in collective action.’ They are ‘involved in conflictual relations with clearly identified opponents, linked by dense informal networks, and share a distinct collective identity. (Porta & Diani, 2006, p. 20)’
Traditional social movements before 1960s concerned mostly class, labor, and nation issues. Since 1960s those who participated in social movement focused more on women’s liberation, environment protection, and so on. These movements had been called ‘new social movements,’ or NSMs, ‘grew partly from the New Left and related student movements’ (Calhoun, 1993, p. 386). Theoretically these two phases, before and after, also witnessed a change from the Marxist model and the structural-functional model to the post-colonial and the deconstructionist model, thorough that the world becomes more and more complex than ever (Calhoun, 1993; Eder, 1993; Melucci, 1980). The result of this transition will be conducive when attempting at explicating the Gulen movement and its contribution to the world. As Enrique suggests, ‘...the concept of “new social movements” is useful for the interpretation of current forms of collective action in complex societies that cannot be explained by classical perspectives’ (Larana, 1994, p. 210). The main argument of this article will be that either traditional social movement approach or new social movement approach cannot be used to describe the Gulen movement. Besides, the Gulen movement cannot be viewed from ‘new religious movement’ approach since its aim is not to create a new sect or denomination or to form a new identity other than Islam. In so doing, we admit that some characteristics of new social movement approach are important and inspiring in analyzing the Gulen movement and its potential of success.
As a result of this, there emerge a variety of contents new social movements can set as their goals. Other than intriguing revolutions, more and more people and NGOs prefer social and political reforms initiating from within the institutional structures. However, as Bayat suggests, although there are many NGOs participating in these kinds of movements, the effectiveness of these movements still depend upon political opportunities to grow and operate (Bayat, 2010, p. 2). In the past, world peace and intercultural dialogue will not be options for social movements. Now, it is possible because on the one hand the world becomes differentiated and fragmented than ever, and on the other hand respecting differences makes almost everything acceptable. These two reasons help us to change our focus from upon the political arena to the public sphere, the social dimension of the political. And this will be the most important thing new social movements approach contributes to our analysis of the Gulen movement.
According to the above mentioned, including Tilly’s, we can suggest so far two things about the Gulen movement. The first is that the people, including FethullahGulen himself, who participate in this movement, are rational in that the movement advocates liberal market economy and the use of modern media technology. It makes sense because the people who support the Gulen movement are largely Turkish businessmen, ‘they fully embrace free market reforms and political liberalization to create business, build schools, publish journals, and accumulate religious and secular knowledge’ (Ebaugh, 2010; Gozaydin, 2009, p. 1216; Gulay, 2009, p. 40). And the second thing can be suggested is that the movement is purposeful, aiming at world peace and intercultural dialogue.[2] However, usually we observed the movement is not so well organized, the people scattered around the world do not necessarily form a solitary group. But locally, they are indeed forming a group to develop the thoughts of Mr. Gulen. We will come back to this point later.
So far as the Gulen movement is concerned, the clearly identified opponents of the movement are ignorance, poverty, and hatred. The people contribute to the movement are linked by dense locally, loose globally informal networks. And finally they all share a collective identity. It is interesting to point out the loose connection between local and global networks. As we can see, the form of organization is not so strict and well organized in that there is no global or transnational organization being in charge of anything administrative or executive. In the global level, the decentralized form of organization offers certain degree of fluidity, promoting ‘member involvement and a sense of responsibility on the part of the millions of participants who maintain a personal stake in the movement achievements’ (Ebaugh, 2010, pp. 58-59). However, it may be a little bit different if we consider it locally. Local communities will try to implement what Mr. Gulen teaches, but they usually do not identify themselves or their actions publicly as connected to the thoughts of Mr. Gulen. In this sense perhaps we can understand why locally they are not so loosely connected, they are either connected densely.
II. Evaluating the Gulen movement through NSMs perspective
The Gulen community, some say, ‘one of the most influential revivalist movements in modern turkey,’ founded by FethullahGulen, makes the silent reformation possible (Özdalga, 2005, p. 430). There is no need here to reiterate who FethullahGulen is, what the Gulen community and the movement are, and the history and organizations. We will only summarize several characteristics of the Gulen community and the movement as follows. First, the founder of the Gulen movement is FethullahGulen, who was born in a traditional Muslim family and was educated as a thinker and preacher. His thoughts was colored heavily with the teachings of Sufi orders, particularly those of Said Nursi, Gulen’s teacher. Secondly, among all fields, education was the most important section emphasized and developed by Mr. Gulen(Yavuz & Esposito, 2003). He set up schools to teach secular knowledge and made attempts to reconcile religion with science. Through education it is possible for Mr. Gulen not only to offer services to those needed but also to spread his ideas in a less aggressive way. Besides, it is more acceptable and convincible for local and global communities when offering secular courses instead of religious education (Özdalga, 2003).[3] Thirdly, including education institutions, there are other three main sections the Gulen community developed: economic enterprises, publications and broadcasting, and religious gatherings (Özdalga, 2005). Fourthly, although it is still debatable, there is no strict organization governing the activities of the Gulen community, whether locally or globally. Most of the time, the organization of the Gulen community is loose and lacks of hierarchical form: ‘no formally organized, hierarchical structure but is, rather, a loosely coordinated network of local circles’ (Ebaugh, 2010, p. 111). This may be true in some countries such as Taiwan. Yet the situation also depends. Lastly, it is without doubt that the Gulen movement is a faith-based, apolitical movement, in spite of its strategies of not identifying to others their religious purposes and acknowledging their possible political effects. In summary, the Gulen movement gains its position not only in Turkey, but also has great influence upon global issues. Its ‘newness’ lies in the fact that it is largely an identity seeking and rebuilding movement, and it concerns not just faith, but also people’s life, starting from educational reformation, ‘the Gulen movement has made a considerable contribution to values and identity formations that tend to deepen the roots of the process of nation state building in Turkey’ (Özdalga, 2005, p. 437). Just like those new social movements occurred in 1960s, the Gulen movement focuses on the identity of the Ottoman, the Turkish, and the Islamic. This can be seen from the fact that Mr. Gulen ‘portrayed his personal history as a great blend of Turkish nationalism and Islam’ (Sozen, 2011, p. 61). Hence we can review and reframe it with new social movements perspective.
Strictly speaking, the term ‘new social movement’ is not quite exact to describe the Gulen movement, since it usually refers to movements against market economy and corrupt democratic governance. For example, German sociology Claus Offe in the 1980s connected new social movements to the critique of social order and of representative democracy (Offe, 1985). Another viewpoint of new social movements came from Alberto Melucci who saw it as ‘trying to oppose the intrusion of the state and the market into social life, reclaiming individual’s right to define their identity and to determine their private and affective lives against the omnipresent and comprehensive manipulation of the system. (Porta & Diani, 2006)’ Melucci defines five characteristics of this recently new kind of collective actions: ‘the end of the separation between public and private spheres,’ ‘the superposition of deviance and social movements,’ ‘they are not focused on the political system,’ ‘solidarity as a objective,’ and ‘direct participation and the rejection of representation’ (Melucci, 1980, pp. 219-221; Ruggiero, 2000).[4] Among them it is the last one that explains why new social movements in their forming stages maintain to a great extent fragmented and loosely connected communities:
Since what is at stake is the reappropriation of identity, all mediation is rejected as likely to reproduce the mechanisms of control and manipulation against the struggle is directed in the first place. Hence the importance of direct action and of direct participation, in other words, of the spontaneous, anti-authoritarian, and anti-hierarchical nature of the protests originating in these movements (Melucci, 1980, p. 220). (Emphasis on me)
Hence, the differences between social movement and new social movement are, according to Porta and Diani, ‘a critical ideology in relation to modernism and progress, decentralized and participatory organizational structures, defense of interpersonal solidarity against the great bureaucracies, and the reclamation of autonomous spaces, rather than material advantages. (Porta & Diani, 2006, p. 9)’ Besides, the cause of the transformation from ‘old’ to ‘new’ can be found in the relationship between the development of the notion of nation state and modernity, which is Norbert Elias called the monopolization of political power, mainly referring to the monopolization of exerting violence and taxation (Özdalga, 2005, p. 431). The division of labor and its resulted interdependence between divisions render this transformation inescapable. The ‘new’ related to the emerging classes that are different from those of the old times, they are new middle classes, so to speak (Pichardo, 1997, p. 416). Hence, the ‘new’ in new social movements is concerning with not just the status and the nature of working classes, but also the identity of other groups such as women, children, migrants, or even animals (Pichardo, 1997, p. 413). The term ‘universal’ occurs and develops when these other groups have to be taken into considerations in the formation of nation state, such as human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, all become a kind of rights possessing ‘universal’ character.