Mehmet Özay 01.04.2019
In societies where modernization processes are structured in a top-down hierarchical manner, it is generally accepted that traditional values are turned upside down. The concept that refers to the post-modern, i.e. the post-modern, emphasizes the assumption that there is a process that transcends or is thought to transcend the previous period. However, it should not be ignored that the post-modern is itself a product of the modern.
There is a contradiction in their approach to embracing this second process, which is called post-modern, and which emerged without the involvement of these traditional-religious structures, which are assumed to have problems with the modern, let's say by this we mean traditional-religious structures. At this point, the question arises whether societies that have ceased to be active and decisive in the processes of building a society in themselves, or have lost this opportunity to a great extent, turning to post-modernity, assuming that it will enable this, does not contain a solution, but rather a fundamental dilemma.
So much so that the post-modern construction, which has its counterparts not only in the academic context but also in everyday life and discourse, brings to the agenda the argument that traditional-religious structures can exist in an authentic context, in and of themselves. Or, going a little further, it is even possible to say that these structures have convinced themselves of such an assertion. However, this situation reveals that traditional-religious structures cannot resist the uncertainties and fluidity inherent in the post-modern. It is witnessed that the top-down hierarchical structuring of the modern period, which can be considered to have been abandoned or left behind to some extent, continues to wreak havoc on traditional-religious structures in the post-modern period by opening the door to singularity and uncertainty without any boundaries.
In this context, we are confronted with the phenomenon of individuals and social groups, who are assumed to belong to the traditional-religious social context in everyday life, finding themselves vulnerable precisely in the face of the imposition of this post-modern structuring, and at the same time internalizing this vulnerability and making it a goal and purpose, knowingly or unknowingly.
When attention is paid to the symbolic values of everyday life, which are in the most visible place, the contradiction that these values are being eviscerated and that the execution of this process, its subjects and objects, are carried out by the same individual and social group(s) reveals itself.
Considering the fact that the structuring of such a social group to render itself nominally independent but basically identity-less and dependent is a product of the post-modern era, it begs the question of whether the post-modern situation pointed out in the introduction is a possibility or whether even a structure that can be thought to have the ability to resist the modern is now evolving in a reverse direction with its lack of will and resistance.
Open Civilization, Year 2, Issue 2, April, p. 56.
English and Indonesian versions translated with DeepL AI
