AccScience Publishing / BIJP / Volume 11 / Issue 1 / DOI: 10.18491/beytulhikme.1590
Cite this article
30
Views
Related Info Links
More by Authors Links
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
News and Announcements
View All
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Mustafa Şekip Tunç, Bergsonian Conservatism, and Passive Revolution

Erol Subaşı1
Show Less
1 Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Üniversitesi, İİBF, Siyaset Bilimi ve Kamu Yönetimi Bölümü 53020, Rize , Turkey
BIJP 2021, 11(1), 139–154; https://doi.org/10.18491/beytulhikme.1590
Received: 3 June 2020 | Published online: 30 March 2021
© 2021 by the Authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-by the license) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Abstract

The 1930s in Turkey is a highly controversial socio-political topic with two main competing interpretations: the liberal-positivists consider the 1930’s transformation as a progressive move whereas conservative-idealists regard it as a top-down break from tradition and history. However, there are other readings that bridge these two positions. To analyze one of these, this study establishes links between Mustafa Şekib Tunç (1886-1958), a Turkish psychologist and philosopher, the French philosopher Henri Bergson (1859-1941), the French sociologist Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), and the Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937). It does this through the latter’s concept of “passive revolution” to contribute to the understanding of Turkey’s socio-political transformation during the 1930s. The main argument is that Tunç’s anti-empiricist and anti-positivist philosophy, based on Bergson’s spiritualist and biologist-holisticism, meets with Durkheim’s positivist collectivism. This enables Tunç to interpret the 1930s’ passive revolution as a “conservative revolution” that found its expression in the formulation of the “unprivileged-classless-fused-mass” and an “organic society”. Tunç, following Bergson, conceives history and society biologically, as a socio-functional whole that helps mask socio-political divisions and struggles within the society.

Keywords
Mustafa Şekip Tunç
conservatism
Henri Bergson
passive revolution. Turkish political life.
References
  1. Bayraktar, L. (1998). Bergsonculuğun Türkiye’ye Girişi ve İlk Temsilcileri. Felsefe Dünyası, 28, 62-72.
  2. Benton, T. & Craib, I. (2011). Philosophy of Science: The Philosophical Foundations of Social Thought. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  3. Bergson, H. (1944). Creative Evolution. New York: The Modern Library.
  4. Berkes, N. (1936). Sociology in Turkey. American Journal of Sociology, 42 (2), 238-46.
  5. Berkes, N. (1998). The Development of Secularism in Turkey. London: Hurst & Company.
  6. Bhaskar, R. (1998). The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences (Critical Realism–Interventions). New York: Routledge.
  7. Bozkurt, N. (1995). 20. Yüzyıl Düşünce Akımları: Yorumlar ve Eleştiriler. İstanbul: Sarmal Yayınevi.
  8. Demirel, T. (2002). 1946 Sonrası Muhafazakâr Modernleşmeci Eğilimler Üzerine Bazı Değinmeler. (Ed. U. Kocabaşoğlu). Modern Türkiye’de Siyasî Düşünce 3: Modernleşme ve Batıcılık. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 218-239.
  9. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. (Eds. & Trans. Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith). London: Lawrence & Wishart.
  10. İrem, N. (2002b). Turkish Conservative Modernism: Birth of a Nationalist Quest for Cultural Renewal. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 34 (1), 87-112.
  11. İrem, N. (1999). Muhafazakar Modernlik; Diğer Batı ve Türkiye’de Bergsonculuk. Toplum ve Bilim, 82, 141-179.
  12. İrem, N. (2002a). Cumhuriyetçi Muhafazakarlık, Seferber Edici Modernlik ve Diğer Batı Düşüncesi. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 57(2), 41-60.
  13. İrem, N. (2003). Bir Değişim Siyaseti Olarak Türkiye’de Cumhuriyetçi Muhafazakârlık. Modern Türkiye’de Siyasi Düşünce, 5, 105-117.
  14. Oğuz, M. C. (2015). Mustafa Şekip Tunç ve Türkiye’de Bergsonculuk. Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1 (1), 90-109.
  15. Parla, T. (1985). The Social and Political Thought of Ziya Gökalp. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
  16. Tunç, M. Ş. (2005). Terakki Fikri. (Haz. O. Bahadır). İstanbul: Anahtar Kitaplar Yayınevi.
  17. Tunç, M. Ş. (1954). Muhafazakarlık ve Liberallik. Türk Düşüncesi, 1 (2), 89.
  18. Tunç, M. Ş. (2010). Liberallik ve Şuurlu Muhafazakarlık. Muhafazakar Düşünce 25–26, 99-103.
  19. Ülken, H. Z. (1992). Türkiye’de Çağdaş Düşünce Tarihi. İstanbul: Ülken Yayınları.
  20. Yalman, G. (2002). The Turkish State and the Bourgeoisie in a Historical Perspective: A Relativist Paradigm or A Panoply of Hegemonic Strategies? The Politics of Permanent Crisis: Class, Ideology and State in Turkey. (Eds. N. Balkan & S. Savran). New York: Nova Science Publishers, 21-54.
Share
Back to top
Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy, Print ISSN: 1303-8303, Published by AccScience Publishing