![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Employing data drawn from ethnographic research and dwelling on Silvan Tomkins’ psychology of knowledge, this article analyzes the process through which affect and cognition coassemble (Tomkins’ words) to shape the Islamic political subjectivity of members of the Nur community in Turkey. The article argues that, through Nur students’ specific understanding of their own community and of the nation state as “collective personalities,” the feelings of love, companionship, sincerity, and unity circulating in community meetings are transplanted into the political arena. This affectively built notion of the national body enables acceptance of Turkish secular institutions and participation in politics. While recognizing the non-linguistic and non-cognitive dimensions of affect, the article emphasizes the connection, rather than disconnection, between affect, thought, and action in the religious field and claims that political theology plays a key role in binding together these three elements.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 When this speech was delivered, Erdoğan, who had long drawn support from the movement gathered around Gülen, had purged thousands of police officers and hundreds of judges and prosecutors since anti-graft raids, which started on 17 December 2014, targeted businessmen close to the premier as well as the sons of some government ministers. The heated local elections in 2014 turned into one of the battles of the power war between the Gülen community and the JDP. The Gülen community would later be accused by the Turkish government of having orchestrated the 15 July 2016, coup d’état attempt against Erdoğan.
2 For a reference to this speech see the official website of the JDP at www.akparti.org.tr.
3 For an in-depth analysis of the relationship between the JDP and the Gülen Movement see Yavuz and Balcı, Turkey’s July 15 Coup.
4 Mian, “Muslim Political Philosophy.”
5 Parla and Davison, Corporatist Ideology, 100–24.
6 See for example Davison, Secularism and Revivalism; Toprak, Islam and Political Development; Cizre Sakallıoğlu, “Parameters and Strategies” and Gülap, “Enlightenment by Fiat.”
7 Kırkıncı, Hayatım Hatıralarım and Kutlular, İşte Hayatım.
8 For an analysis of the cooperation between the JDP and faith-based organizations in Turkey see Arslan Köse, “Faith-Based Organizations in Turkey.”
9 Tuğal, Passive Revolution.
10 Here I use the translation of the word sohbet found in Silverstein, Islam and Modernity, 135.
11 Moosa, Political Theology.
12 A noticeable exception here is represented by the Yeni Asya and Med-Zehra subgroups within the community. The latter opposed the 1980 military coup and their cadres do not openly support the JDP (although their rank-and-file members do vote for it).
13 Tomkins, Affect Imagery Consciousness: Volume1, 112.
14 Sedgwick and Frank, “Shame in the Cybernetic.”
15 Ibid., 113–14; Sedgwick and Frank, Shame and Its Sisters, 33–40; Frank and Wilson, A Silvan Tomkins Handbook, 44–5.
16 Tomkins, Affect and the Psychology, 73.
17 Ibid., 73.
18 Frank and Wilson, A Silvan Tomkins Handbook, 57–8.
19 Ibid., 74; Tomkins, Left and Right, 74.
20 Ibid., 74.
21 Ibid., 74; Tomkins, Affect Imagery Consciousness, Volume 3, 216–19.
22 Tomkins, Affect and the Psychology, 74.
23 Tomkins, Left and Right, 78.
24 Ibid., 77: Frank and Wilson, A Silvan Tomkins Handbook, 111–17.
25 Schaefer, Religious Affects, 8.
26 Pellegrini, “Signaling Through the Flames,” 917.
27 For a detailed analysis of sociability practices among Nur students and members of the Gülen community see Vicini, “Do Not Cross” and Reading Islam.
28 See for example Trimingham, The Sufi Orders; Schimmel, Mystical Dimensions of Islam; Algar, “Devotional Practices.”
29 Silverstein, Islam and Modernity, 26.
30 Trix, Spiritual Discourse, 133–57, quoted in Ibid., 144.
31 Silverstein, Islam and Modernity, 209–20.
32 Vicini, “Pedagogies of Affection.”
33 Fieldnotes, Istanbul, May 2013.
34 Schaefer, Religious Affects, 15.
35 Fieldnotes, Istanbul, February 2013.
36 Brennan, The Transmission of Affect, 1–6.
37 Ibid., 7.
38 In the English translation of the Risale used in this article, Șükran Vahide most of the times renders şahs-i manevi as “collective personality.” Occasionally she translates it as “spiritual person” or “corporate identity” as well.
39 Nursi, The Words, 179.
40 Fieldnotes, Ankara, June 2013.
41 Nursi, The Flashes, 217.
42 Personal communication, Istanbul, October 2012.
43 Personal communications, Istanbul, December 2012 and Istanbul, January 2013.
44 Nursi, The Flashes, 215.
45 Note that the translation of enaniyet as “cult of the self” is mine. In the English translation of the Risale used in this article enaniyet is rendered as “I-ness” by Șükran Vahide.
46 Nursi, The Words, 557–69.
47 Personal communication, Istanbul April 2013 and Güleçyüz, Cemaatler ve Toplum, 13–15.
48 Brennan, The Transmission of Affects, 8.
49 Ibid., 53.
50 Ibid., 62.
51 For an elaboration on this concept from a Nur perspective, see Mürsel, Bediüzzaman Said Nursi.
52 Mürsel, Bediüzzaman Said Nursi, 188–90 and personal communication, Istanbul, May 2012.
53 Personal communication, Istanbul, February 2013.
54 Nursi, The Letters, 70–1.
55 Fieldnotes, Erzurum, May 2013.
56 For a thorough analysis of the circulation of affects in “affective economies” see Ahmed, “Affective Economies.”
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Maria Tedesco
Maria Tedesco is an Assistant Teaching Professor of Islamic Studies at Seattle University in Seattle, WA. She holds a BA and an MA in Islamic Studies from the University of Naples “L’Orientale” in Naples, Italy and a PhD in Social and Political Sciences from the European University Institute in Florence, Italy. Her research interests lie at the intersection of Islamic studies, political theology, and the sociology of religion, with a particular focus on contemporary Islamic movements.