Alevis are ready to serve, Master !

Alevis, who constitute one of the largest communities in Turkey, have been a prominent topic of controversies in the Republic's history. Alevi identity, however, has been held as an object of meta-ideologies and it was hard for them to give voice in the public sphere on their own as subjects. Since secular life style exponents tried to make their choices dominant over the masses, they would rather use Alevi identity as an object in their phantasies. Yet this narrow circle was debunked with Alevi workshops in 2009 that the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) started led by minister of state responsible for religious affairs, Faruk Çelik, academics, researchers and Alevi representatives. The workshops took months and welcomed highly substantial discussions.

Alevi identity has been recognized and accepted as a subject of politics for the first time in Turkey's history by a ruling party that received half of the vote. In my case, along with other democratizations steps, this was a revolutionary one. (For other developments on the Alevi issue, you may check http://timelineturkey.com/en/alevis) However, the secular hegemony of Turkey, which is considered the liberal side of politics by most Westerners due to their "friends" here who they are informed by tell them so, want Alevis to fight on the front lines in social crises. But why?

Beginning a statement on the Alevi issue by saying "the Alevis" as if they are a homogenous group and one is giving a lecture on their behalf is problematical beyond any doubt. Yet this attitude is very useful in many debates that are blindly based on politics, but not the people, such as it is with the Kurdish issue. The story is brought and performed by the Western gaze like this. By the way "Western" does not necessarily mean literally "western," but an international "master gaze." On one side there are Sunnis who are bigoted, ignorant, ready to slaughter and reactionary and there are Alevis who are alcohol-friendly, Kemalist, progressivist, secular and intellectual victims on the other. This story does not reflect a factual picture, for sure. This aspect takes two groups as if they are concrete homogenous communities and appropriates characteristics and experiences to only specific groups. It only distorts the reality we live in, contributes to animosity and hostility instead of construction of social peace and justice. The reason for the negative version of this story's popularity is that it is a perfect servant for the "master." And the story has another error apart from these. Intellectuals and politicians who seem pro-Alevi, stand with the "master's" side and have no organic connections with the social base. By treating Alevis as snowflakes as though they desperately need protection, "master"-lovers actually play a leading role and put Alevis behind the stage.

Sunnis, who, again, cannot be considered a homogenous group, have been codified as "trouble-makers" by the "master" and stigmatized to consider Alevis as the "constitutive other." Unfortunately, the same "master" presented Sunni identity as pseudo-master and set it as Alevi's "constitutive other." This endless circle that causes social catastrophes was a typical "master" trick. A scenario had been played that prevented people from expressing their anger or happiness or friendships or conflicts, which made them the impersonate script's characters for years. Either people argued or fought, this issue must have been solved by meeting and negotiating. The sovereign pretended to reward Sunnis as "master" and ruled them in exchange. By doing this, it provided Sunnis' suppressed anger canalizing to the other. On the other side, it promoted how hard being an Alevi in this region through cultural capital controlled by the sovereign itself. By now.

Despite the fact that doing politics was discredited in Turkey, it is a must, as well as interaction with others, and it found the opportunity to be performed by the book for the last 13 years. As long as citizens participate in politics, social issues will have the chance to be settled. Yet the "master" pursues carrier while declaring its good spirit by delivering one side's victimization as if it helps them. As a matter of fact, by doing so, it imposes that the object is not capable of dealing with another subject or matures enough, and lastly, needs "master's" patronage. At the end of the day, the object is sentenced to be victim and chained by the "master" forever. From now on, it is time to grow up.

*Research assistant at Marmara University