Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

2018’de Türkiye Twitter’ında Diyanet Karşıtı Muhalif Kamusallıkta Vuku Bulan Deizm Tartışmasını Anlamak

Year 2023, Issue: 38, 30 - 58, 30.06.2023

Ivo Ozan Furman Kaya Akyıldız

https://doi.org/10.16878/gsuilet.1314765

Abstract

Deizmin Türkiye’de imam hatip okulu öğrencileri arasında yaygınlaştığına dair tartışmalar sürerken Diyanet İşleri Başkanı Ali Erbaş 12 Nisan 2018 tarihinde deistleri “sapık ve batıl felsefi bir düşüncenin takipçileri” olarak tanımladığı bir açıklama yaptı. Açıklamanın ardından sosyal medya, A. Erbaş'ın beyânatına verilen sert tepkiler ve kısmen de olsa destek açıklamalarıyla dolup taştı. Erbaş'ın açıklamasının tetiklediği bu tartışmayı anlamlandırabilmek amacıyla Twitter’da beyânattan sonraki 48 saatlik süreyi mercek altına almaya karar verdik. Sayısal veri toplama yöntemlerini kullanarak elde ettiğimiz 15.226 farklı Twitter kullanıcısına ait 21.674 tweetten oluşan bir veri seti ile tartışmada gündeme gelen temaları ve alınan pozisyonları analiz ettik. Hem niteliksel içerik analizi, hem de sosyal ağ analizi kullanarak gerçekleştirdiğimiz araştırmamızın bulguları, Twitter’da A. Erbaş’ın tetiklediği deizm tartışması vesilesiyle 3 temel sonucun ortaya çıktığını göstermektedir. Bu sonuçlar şöyleözetlenebilir: a) Twitter “dinden (Sünnî İslâm) dönme hikâyeleri”nin dile getirildiği geçici bir diyalojik alana dönüşmüştür; b) Twitter A. Erbaş’ın ve Diyanet'in politikalarına yönelik eleştirileri yapabilmek bir fırsat penceresi açmıştır; ve c) Twitter kullanıcıları A. Erbaş'ın açıklamalarından sadece A. Erbaş’ı değil hükümet aktörlerini doğrudan sorumlu tutmuştur.

Keywords

Türkiye deizm Twitter sayısal yöntemler sosyal ağ analizi içerik analizi

References

  • Akyıldız, K. (2022). The affirmation of Sunni supremacism in Erdoğan's ‘new Turkey’. In: Hecker, Furman & Akyıldız (Eds.) The politics of culture in contemporary Turkey. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 277– 291.
  • Al-Saqaf, W., & Christensen, C. (2019). Tweeting in precarious times: Comparing Twitter use during the 2013 general election in Kenya and the 2012 presidential election in Egypt. In Media, Communication, and the Struggle for Democratic Change (pp. 133-157). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
  • Arvidsson, A., Caliandro, A., Airoldi, M., & Barina, S. (2016). Crowds and value. Italian directioners on Twitter. Information, Communication & Society, 19(7), 921-939.
  • Azak, U. (2010). Islam and Secularism in Turkey: Kemalism, Religion and the Nation-State. I.B. Tauris Press.
  • Asen, R., & Brouwer, D. C. (Eds.). (2001). Counterpublics and the state. Albany: SUNY Press.
  • Başçı, V. (2018). Deizm Kavramı ve Ortaya Çıkardığı Problemler. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 22(1), 33-40.
  • Baybars-Hawks, B., & Akser, M. (2012). Media and Democracy in Turkey: Toward a Model of Neoliberal Media Autocracy. Middle East Journal of Culture and Communication, 5(3), 302–321.
  • Borra, E., & Rieder, B. (2014). Programmed method: Developing a toolset for capturing and analyzing tweets. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 66(3), 262–278.
  • Boyd, D. (2011). Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp. 39–58). Routledge.
  • Böhürler, A. (2017, September 30). Din yorgunu gençler! Yeni Şafak. https://www.yenisafak.com/yazarlar/ayse-bohurler/din-yorgunu-gencler-2040378
  • Burrows, R., & Savage, M. (2014). After the crisis? Big Data and the methodological challenges of empirical sociology. Big Data & Society, 1(1).
  • Büyük, K. & Bozkurt, A. (2020). A Social Network Analysis of the July 15 Coup Attempt: Social Resistance, Network Patterns, and Collective Discourse. Bilig, (93), 1-28.
  • Bruns, A., & Burgess, J. (2016). Methodological innovation in precarious spaces: The case of Twitter. In Digital methods for social science (pp. 17-33). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
  • Bruns, A., & Moe, H. (2014). Structural layers of communication on Twitter. Twitter and society Digital formations, 89, 15-28.
  • Bulut, E., & Yörük, E. (2017). Mediatized populisms| digital populism: Trolls and political polarization of Twitter in Turkey. International Journal of Communication, 11, 25.
  • Çakır, E. (2018, April 3). Dindar Gençlik İsterken. Karar Gazetesi. https://www.karar.com/yazarlar/elif-cakir/dindar-genclik-isterken-6626
  • Ceron, A. (2017). Social media and political accountability: Bridging the gap between citizens and politicians. Springer.
  • Cioffi-Revilla, C. A. (2014). Introduction to computational social science: Principles and applications.
  • Çavdar, A. (2022). Never Walk Alone: The Politics of Unveiling in ‘New Turkey.’ In The Politics of Culture in Contemporary Turkey (pp. 172–190). Edinburgh University Press.
  • Cumhuriyet Gazetesi. (2018). Bahçeli’den “deizm” çıkışı. Cumhuriyet Cumhuriyet. https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/bahceliden-deizm-cikisi-956415
  • Jong, W. D., Shaw, M., & Stammers, N. (2005). Global activism, global media. Pluto Press.
  • Demir, Y. & Ayhan, B. (2020). Sosyal Medyanın Gündem Belirleyicileri: Twitter’da Gündem Belirleme Süreci Üzerine Bir Sosyal Ağ Analizi . İletişim Kuram ve Araştırma Dergisi, 2020 (51) , 1-19.
  • Doğu, B. (2020). Turkey’s news media landscape in Twitter: Mapping interconnections among diversity. Journalism, 21(5), 688–706.
  • Doğu, B. (2019). Environment as Politics: Framing the Cerattepe Protest in Twitter, Environmental Communication, 13:5, 617-632.
  • Dogu, B., & Mat, O. (2019). Who Sets the Agenda? Polarization and Issue Ownership in Turkey’s Political Twittersphere. International Journal of Communication, 13, 22.
  • Dorman, E. (2021). Tarihsel ve Teolojik Açıdan Deizm ve Eleştirisi. MİSBAH: Çağdaş Din Çalışmaları Dergisi, 10(18).
  • Düzgün, Ali, Ş. (2021). Deizm: Öncü İsimler ve Temel Doktrin. MİSBAH: Çağdaş Din Çalışmaları Dergisi, 10(18).
  • Eriksson, M. (2016). Managing collective trauma on social media: The role of Twitter after the 2011 Norway attacks. Media, Culture & Society, 38(3), 365-380.
  • Fazlıoğlu, İ. (2018). Prof. İhsan Fazlıoğlu: Mesele ciddi, başörtülü ateistler var! https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6hx6h6
  • Felski, R. (1989). Beyond feminist aesthetics: Feminist literature and social change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Furman, I. (2022). Challenges & opportunities of computational methodologies for Media Studies. 2. International Mediterranean Scientific Research and Innovation Congress, 1147–1153.
  • Furman, I., & Tunç, A. (2019). End of a Habermassian Ideal? Political Communication on Twitter during the night of the 2017 Turkish Constitutional Referendum. Policy & the Internet, 11(3).
  • Furman, I. O., Gürel, K. B., & Sivaslıoğlu, F. B. (2023). “As Reliable as a Kalashnikov Rifle”: How Sputnik News Promotes Russian Vaccine Technologies in the Turkish Twittersphere. Social Media + Society, 9(1).
  • Fraser, N. (2011). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. In C. J. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (Nachdr.). MIT Press.
  • Giglietto, F., Rossi, L., & Bennato, D. (2012). The Open Laboratory: Limits and Possibilities of Using Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube as a Research Data Source. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 30(3–4), 145–159.
  • Grandjean, M. (2016). A social network analysis of Twitter: Mapping the digital humanities community. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 3(1).
  • Gençlik ve İnanç. (2018). İKDAM Eğitim Derneği ve Uluslararası Öncü Eğitimciler Derneği. https://www.ikdam.org/genclik-ve-inanc-calistayi-sonuc-bildirisi/
  • Hecker, P. Furman, I. and Akyıldız, K. (2022). The Politics of Culture in Contemporary Turkey. Edinburgh University Press.
  • Jackson, S. J., & Foucault Welles, B. (2015). Hijacking #myNYPD: Social Media Dissent and Networked Counterpublics. Journal of Communication, 65(6), 932-952.
  • Jackson, S. J., & Foucault Welles, B. (2016). #Ferguson is everywhere: initiators in emerging counterpublic networks. Information, Communication & Society, 19(3), 397-418.
  • İspir, N. B. & Deniz, K. (2017). Kasim 2015 Genel Seçi̇mleri̇nde Köşe Yazarlarının Twi̇tter Gündemi̇ne Yöneli̇k Bi̇r Sosyal Ağ Anali̇zi Uygulaması. Kurgu, 25 (1).
  • Irak, D. (2016). A close-knit bunch: Political concentration in Turkey's Anadolu Agency through Twitter interactions. Turkish Studies, 17(2), 336-360.
  • Kardaş, M. Ö. (2023). The ‘ascendance’ of deism in Turkey: Context, drivers and debate. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 1–21.
  • Kobak, K. (2022). #TikTokkapansın Hareketi: Twitter’da Sosyal Ağ Analizi. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 11 (1) , 309-319 .
  • Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th Ed.). Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications.
  • Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010). What is Twitter, a social network, or a news media? Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web. WWW’10, New York.
  • Lazer, D., Pentland, A., Adamic, L., Aral, S., Barabasi, A.-L., Brewer, D., Christakis, N., Contractor, N., Fowler, J., Gutmann, M., Jebara, T., King, G., Macy, M., Roy, D., & Van Alstyne, M. (2009). SOCIAL SCIENCE: Computational Social Science. Science, 323(5915), 721–723.
  • Lord, C. (2018). Religious Politics in Turkey: From the Birth of the Republic to the AKP. Cambridge University Press.
  • Malçok, T. (2022). Enquêter sur la reconnaissance des sensibilités athées en Turquie contemporaine. European Journal of Turkish Studies. Social Sciences on Contemporary Turkey.
  • Murthy, D. (2011). Twitter: Microphone for the masses?. Media, Culture & Society, 33(5), 779–789.
  • Neuendorf, K. A. (2017). The content analysis guidebook. SAGE Publications.
  • Ozduzen, O., & McGarry, A. (2020). Digital traces of “twitter revolutions”: Resistance, polarization, and surveillance via contested images and texts of Occupy Gezi. International Journal of Communication, 14, 2543-2563.
  • Puschmann, C., & Burgess, J. (2014). Big Data, Big Questions| Metaphors of Big Data. International Journal of Communication, 8(0).
  • Saka, E. (2018). Social Media in Turkey as a Space for Political Battles: AKTrolls and other Politically motivated trolling. Middle East Critique, 27(2), 161–177.
  • Sakaki, T., Okazaki, M., & Matsuo, Y. (2010). Earthquake shakes Twitter users: Real-time event detection by social sensors. 851.
  • Savage, M., & Burrows, R. (2007). The Coming Crisis of Empirical Sociology. Sociology, 41(5), 885–899.
  • Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. SAGE Publications.
  • Sevgi, H. (2021). Sosyal Ağ Analizi Ile Işçi Konfederasyonlarinin Twitter Etkinliğinin Incelenmesi: Hollanda Ve Türkiye Örneği. Sosyal Güvence, 0 (18) , 374-396.
  • Siapera, E. (2014). Tweeting# Palestine: Twitter and the mediation of Palestine. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 17(6), 539-555.
  • Smith, M., Rainie, L., Shneiderman, B., & Himelboim, I. (2014). Mapping Twitter Topic Networks: From Polarized Crowds to Community Clusters. Washington, DC, USA: Pew Research Center, in association with the Social Media Research Foundation.
  • Sözeri, C. (2011). Does social media reduce “corporate media influence” on journalism?: The Case of Turkish Media. Estudos Em Comunicação, 10, 71.
  • Sözeri, E. K. (2015). Mapping Turkey’s Twitter-troll lynch mobs. https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/turkey-twitter-trolls/
  • Subaşı, N. (2017). Din yorgunluğu ya da gündelik popüler kültürün tükettiği “İslâmî” yorumlar. İçinde M. Ak & H. Cansız (Eds.), Gelenek ve modernite arasında İslam yorumları. Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  • TRT. (2018, April 12). Diyanet İşleri Başkanı Erbaş’tan önemli açıklamalar. In TRT Haber. https://www.diyanet.gov.tr/tr-TR/Kurumsal/Detay/11462/diyanet-isleri-baskani-erbastan-trt-haberde-onemli-aciklamalar
  • Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. Yale University Press.
  • Tuğal, C. (2016). The Fall of the Turkish Model: How the Arab Uprisings Brought Down Islamic Liberalism. Verso Books.
  • Tunç, A. (2014). Can Pomegranates Replace Penguins? Social Media and the Rise of Citizen Journalism in Turkey. Freedom House.
  • Ural, H. (2021). The Resonant Chants of Networked Discourse: Affective Publics and the Muslim Self in Turkey. International Journal of Communication, 15, 21.
  • Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393(6684), 440–442.
  • Williams, M. L., Burnap, P., & Sloan, L. (2017). Towards an ethical framework for publishing Twitter data in social research: Taking into account users’ views, online context and algorithmic estimation. Sociology, 51(6), 1149-1168.
  • Yeşil, B. (2018). Authoritarian Turn or Continuity? Governance of Media through Capture and Discipline in the AKP Era. South European Society and Politics, 23(2), 239–257.

Cartographier les publics opposés à Diyanet lors de la controverse au sujet du déisme en 2018 sur Twitter turc

Year 2023, Issue: 38, 30 - 58, 30.06.2023

Ivo Ozan Furman Kaya Akyıldız

https://doi.org/10.16878/gsuilet.1314765

Abstract

Au milieu des rumeurs selon lesquelles le déisme - une forme d'agnosticisme qui rejette la religion organisée - devenait populaire parmi les étudiants fréquentant les écoles religieuses en Turquie, Ali Erbaş, le chef de la Direction des affaires religieuses, a fait une déclaration publique dans laquelle les déistes étaient décrits comme adhérant à "une philosophie perverse et hérétique". Peu après, les médias sociaux ont été envahis par les réactions à la déclaration controversée d'Erbaş. En utilisant des stratégies de collecte de données computationnelles pour rassembler un ensemble de 21 674 tweets envoyés par 15 226 utilisateurs distincts de Twitter dans les 48 heures suivant l'événement, cette étude examine les positions et thèmes à travers lesquels la controverse a été discutée sur Twitter. Elle s'appuie à la fois sur une analyse qualitative et sur une analyse de réseaux sociaux pour montrer comment la controverse a transformé la twittersphère turque en un espace de dialogue temporaire pour a) l'énonciation de "récits de déconversion" de l'islam, b) l'expression d'un activisme civil de base tentant de rendre les acteurs gouvernementaux responsables des commentaires d'Erbaş, c) l'expression d'une critique collective rationalisée à l'égard des politiques d'Ali Erbaş et de la Diyanet.

Keywords

religion en Turquie déisme Twitter méthodes informatiques analyse des réseaux sociaux analyse de contenu

References

  • Akyıldız, K. (2022). The affirmation of Sunni supremacism in Erdoğan's ‘new Turkey’. In: Hecker, Furman & Akyıldız (Eds.) The politics of culture in contemporary Turkey. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 277– 291.
  • Al-Saqaf, W., & Christensen, C. (2019). Tweeting in precarious times: Comparing Twitter use during the 2013 general election in Kenya and the 2012 presidential election in Egypt. In Media, Communication, and the Struggle for Democratic Change (pp. 133-157). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
  • Arvidsson, A., Caliandro, A., Airoldi, M., & Barina, S. (2016). Crowds and value. Italian directioners on Twitter. Information, Communication & Society, 19(7), 921-939.
  • Azak, U. (2010). Islam and Secularism in Turkey: Kemalism, Religion and the Nation-State. I.B. Tauris Press.
  • Asen, R., & Brouwer, D. C. (Eds.). (2001). Counterpublics and the state. Albany: SUNY Press.
  • Başçı, V. (2018). Deizm Kavramı ve Ortaya Çıkardığı Problemler. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 22(1), 33-40.
  • Baybars-Hawks, B., & Akser, M. (2012). Media and Democracy in Turkey: Toward a Model of Neoliberal Media Autocracy. Middle East Journal of Culture and Communication, 5(3), 302–321.
  • Borra, E., & Rieder, B. (2014). Programmed method: Developing a toolset for capturing and analyzing tweets. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 66(3), 262–278.
  • Boyd, D. (2011). Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp. 39–58). Routledge.
  • Böhürler, A. (2017, September 30). Din yorgunu gençler! Yeni Şafak. https://www.yenisafak.com/yazarlar/ayse-bohurler/din-yorgunu-gencler-2040378
  • Burrows, R., & Savage, M. (2014). After the crisis? Big Data and the methodological challenges of empirical sociology. Big Data & Society, 1(1).
  • Büyük, K. & Bozkurt, A. (2020). A Social Network Analysis of the July 15 Coup Attempt: Social Resistance, Network Patterns, and Collective Discourse. Bilig, (93), 1-28.
  • Bruns, A., & Burgess, J. (2016). Methodological innovation in precarious spaces: The case of Twitter. In Digital methods for social science (pp. 17-33). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
  • Bruns, A., & Moe, H. (2014). Structural layers of communication on Twitter. Twitter and society Digital formations, 89, 15-28.
  • Bulut, E., & Yörük, E. (2017). Mediatized populisms| digital populism: Trolls and political polarization of Twitter in Turkey. International Journal of Communication, 11, 25.
  • Çakır, E. (2018, April 3). Dindar Gençlik İsterken. Karar Gazetesi. https://www.karar.com/yazarlar/elif-cakir/dindar-genclik-isterken-6626
  • Ceron, A. (2017). Social media and political accountability: Bridging the gap between citizens and politicians. Springer.
  • Cioffi-Revilla, C. A. (2014). Introduction to computational social science: Principles and applications.
  • Çavdar, A. (2022). Never Walk Alone: The Politics of Unveiling in ‘New Turkey.’ In The Politics of Culture in Contemporary Turkey (pp. 172–190). Edinburgh University Press.
  • Cumhuriyet Gazetesi. (2018). Bahçeli’den “deizm” çıkışı. Cumhuriyet Cumhuriyet. https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/bahceliden-deizm-cikisi-956415
  • Jong, W. D., Shaw, M., & Stammers, N. (2005). Global activism, global media. Pluto Press.
  • Demir, Y. & Ayhan, B. (2020). Sosyal Medyanın Gündem Belirleyicileri: Twitter’da Gündem Belirleme Süreci Üzerine Bir Sosyal Ağ Analizi . İletişim Kuram ve Araştırma Dergisi, 2020 (51) , 1-19.
  • Doğu, B. (2020). Turkey’s news media landscape in Twitter: Mapping interconnections among diversity. Journalism, 21(5), 688–706.
  • Doğu, B. (2019). Environment as Politics: Framing the Cerattepe Protest in Twitter, Environmental Communication, 13:5, 617-632.
  • Dogu, B., & Mat, O. (2019). Who Sets the Agenda? Polarization and Issue Ownership in Turkey’s Political Twittersphere. International Journal of Communication, 13, 22.
  • Dorman, E. (2021). Tarihsel ve Teolojik Açıdan Deizm ve Eleştirisi. MİSBAH: Çağdaş Din Çalışmaları Dergisi, 10(18).
  • Düzgün, Ali, Ş. (2021). Deizm: Öncü İsimler ve Temel Doktrin. MİSBAH: Çağdaş Din Çalışmaları Dergisi, 10(18).
  • Eriksson, M. (2016). Managing collective trauma on social media: The role of Twitter after the 2011 Norway attacks. Media, Culture & Society, 38(3), 365-380.
  • Fazlıoğlu, İ. (2018). Prof. İhsan Fazlıoğlu: Mesele ciddi, başörtülü ateistler var! https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6hx6h6
  • Felski, R. (1989). Beyond feminist aesthetics: Feminist literature and social change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Furman, I. (2022). Challenges & opportunities of computational methodologies for Media Studies. 2. International Mediterranean Scientific Research and Innovation Congress, 1147–1153.
  • Furman, I., & Tunç, A. (2019). End of a Habermassian Ideal? Political Communication on Twitter during the night of the 2017 Turkish Constitutional Referendum. Policy & the Internet, 11(3).
  • Furman, I. O., Gürel, K. B., & Sivaslıoğlu, F. B. (2023). “As Reliable as a Kalashnikov Rifle”: How Sputnik News Promotes Russian Vaccine Technologies in the Turkish Twittersphere. Social Media + Society, 9(1).
  • Fraser, N. (2011). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. In C. J. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (Nachdr.). MIT Press.
  • Giglietto, F., Rossi, L., & Bennato, D. (2012). The Open Laboratory: Limits and Possibilities of Using Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube as a Research Data Source. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 30(3–4), 145–159.
  • Grandjean, M. (2016). A social network analysis of Twitter: Mapping the digital humanities community. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 3(1).
  • Gençlik ve İnanç. (2018). İKDAM Eğitim Derneği ve Uluslararası Öncü Eğitimciler Derneği. https://www.ikdam.org/genclik-ve-inanc-calistayi-sonuc-bildirisi/
  • Hecker, P. Furman, I. and Akyıldız, K. (2022). The Politics of Culture in Contemporary Turkey. Edinburgh University Press.
  • Jackson, S. J., & Foucault Welles, B. (2015). Hijacking #myNYPD: Social Media Dissent and Networked Counterpublics. Journal of Communication, 65(6), 932-952.
  • Jackson, S. J., & Foucault Welles, B. (2016). #Ferguson is everywhere: initiators in emerging counterpublic networks. Information, Communication & Society, 19(3), 397-418.
  • İspir, N. B. & Deniz, K. (2017). Kasim 2015 Genel Seçi̇mleri̇nde Köşe Yazarlarının Twi̇tter Gündemi̇ne Yöneli̇k Bi̇r Sosyal Ağ Anali̇zi Uygulaması. Kurgu, 25 (1).
  • Irak, D. (2016). A close-knit bunch: Political concentration in Turkey's Anadolu Agency through Twitter interactions. Turkish Studies, 17(2), 336-360.
  • Kardaş, M. Ö. (2023). The ‘ascendance’ of deism in Turkey: Context, drivers and debate. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 1–21.
  • Kobak, K. (2022). #TikTokkapansın Hareketi: Twitter’da Sosyal Ağ Analizi. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 11 (1) , 309-319 .
  • Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th Ed.). Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications.
  • Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010). What is Twitter, a social network, or a news media? Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web. WWW’10, New York.
  • Lazer, D., Pentland, A., Adamic, L., Aral, S., Barabasi, A.-L., Brewer, D., Christakis, N., Contractor, N., Fowler, J., Gutmann, M., Jebara, T., King, G., Macy, M., Roy, D., & Van Alstyne, M. (2009). SOCIAL SCIENCE: Computational Social Science. Science, 323(5915), 721–723.
  • Lord, C. (2018). Religious Politics in Turkey: From the Birth of the Republic to the AKP. Cambridge University Press.
  • Malçok, T. (2022). Enquêter sur la reconnaissance des sensibilités athées en Turquie contemporaine. European Journal of Turkish Studies. Social Sciences on Contemporary Turkey.
  • Murthy, D. (2011). Twitter: Microphone for the masses?. Media, Culture & Society, 33(5), 779–789.
  • Neuendorf, K. A. (2017). The content analysis guidebook. SAGE Publications.
  • Ozduzen, O., & McGarry, A. (2020). Digital traces of “twitter revolutions”: Resistance, polarization, and surveillance via contested images and texts of Occupy Gezi. International Journal of Communication, 14, 2543-2563.
  • Puschmann, C., & Burgess, J. (2014). Big Data, Big Questions| Metaphors of Big Data. International Journal of Communication, 8(0).
  • Saka, E. (2018). Social Media in Turkey as a Space for Political Battles: AKTrolls and other Politically motivated trolling. Middle East Critique, 27(2), 161–177.
  • Sakaki, T., Okazaki, M., & Matsuo, Y. (2010). Earthquake shakes Twitter users: Real-time event detection by social sensors. 851.
  • Savage, M., & Burrows, R. (2007). The Coming Crisis of Empirical Sociology. Sociology, 41(5), 885–899.
  • Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. SAGE Publications.
  • Sevgi, H. (2021). Sosyal Ağ Analizi Ile Işçi Konfederasyonlarinin Twitter Etkinliğinin Incelenmesi: Hollanda Ve Türkiye Örneği. Sosyal Güvence, 0 (18) , 374-396.
  • Siapera, E. (2014). Tweeting# Palestine: Twitter and the mediation of Palestine. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 17(6), 539-555.
  • Smith, M., Rainie, L., Shneiderman, B., & Himelboim, I. (2014). Mapping Twitter Topic Networks: From Polarized Crowds to Community Clusters. Washington, DC, USA: Pew Research Center, in association with the Social Media Research Foundation.
  • Sözeri, C. (2011). Does social media reduce “corporate media influence” on journalism?: The Case of Turkish Media. Estudos Em Comunicação, 10, 71.
  • Sözeri, E. K. (2015). Mapping Turkey’s Twitter-troll lynch mobs. https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/turkey-twitter-trolls/
  • Subaşı, N. (2017). Din yorgunluğu ya da gündelik popüler kültürün tükettiği “İslâmî” yorumlar. İçinde M. Ak & H. Cansız (Eds.), Gelenek ve modernite arasında İslam yorumları. Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  • TRT. (2018, April 12). Diyanet İşleri Başkanı Erbaş’tan önemli açıklamalar. In TRT Haber. https://www.diyanet.gov.tr/tr-TR/Kurumsal/Detay/11462/diyanet-isleri-baskani-erbastan-trt-haberde-onemli-aciklamalar
  • Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. Yale University Press.
  • Tuğal, C. (2016). The Fall of the Turkish Model: How the Arab Uprisings Brought Down Islamic Liberalism. Verso Books.
  • Tunç, A. (2014). Can Pomegranates Replace Penguins? Social Media and the Rise of Citizen Journalism in Turkey. Freedom House.
  • Ural, H. (2021). The Resonant Chants of Networked Discourse: Affective Publics and the Muslim Self in Turkey. International Journal of Communication, 15, 21.
  • Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393(6684), 440–442.
  • Williams, M. L., Burnap, P., & Sloan, L. (2017). Towards an ethical framework for publishing Twitter data in social research: Taking into account users’ views, online context and algorithmic estimation. Sociology, 51(6), 1149-1168.
  • Yeşil, B. (2018). Authoritarian Turn or Continuity? Governance of Media through Capture and Discipline in the AKP Era. South European Society and Politics, 23(2), 239–257.

Mapping Anti-Diyanet Oppositional Publics During the 2018 Deism Controversy on Turkish Twitter

Year 2023, Issue: 38, 30 - 58, 30.06.2023

Ivo Ozan Furman Kaya Akyıldız

https://doi.org/10.16878/gsuilet.1314765

Abstract

Amidst rumors that deism - a form of agnosticism that rejects organized religion - was becoming popular amongst students attending religious schools in Turkey, Ali Erbaş, the head of the Religious Affairs Directorate, made a public statement wherein deists were described as adhering to “a perverse and heretic philosophy”. Soon afterwards, social media was abuzz with responses to Erbaş’s controversial statement. Using computational data collection strategies to amass a dataset of 21,674 tweets sent out by 15,226 distinct Twitter users within 48 hours of the event, this study examines the positions and themes through which the controversy was discussed on Twitter. It relies on both qualitative analysis as well as social network analysis to present evidence on how the controversy turned the Turkish Twittersphere into a temporary dialogical space for the a) enunciation of “deconversion narratives” from Islam, b) expression of grassroots civil activism attempting to hold government actors accountable for Erbaş’s comments, c) voicing of rationalized collective critique towards the policies of Ali Erbaş and the Diyanet.

Keywords

religion in turkey deism Twitter computational methods social network analysis content analysis

References

  • Akyıldız, K. (2022). The affirmation of Sunni supremacism in Erdoğan's ‘new Turkey’. In: Hecker, Furman & Akyıldız (Eds.) The politics of culture in contemporary Turkey. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 277– 291.
  • Al-Saqaf, W., & Christensen, C. (2019). Tweeting in precarious times: Comparing Twitter use during the 2013 general election in Kenya and the 2012 presidential election in Egypt. In Media, Communication, and the Struggle for Democratic Change (pp. 133-157). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
  • Arvidsson, A., Caliandro, A., Airoldi, M., & Barina, S. (2016). Crowds and value. Italian directioners on Twitter. Information, Communication & Society, 19(7), 921-939.
  • Azak, U. (2010). Islam and Secularism in Turkey: Kemalism, Religion and the Nation-State. I.B. Tauris Press.
  • Asen, R., & Brouwer, D. C. (Eds.). (2001). Counterpublics and the state. Albany: SUNY Press.
  • Başçı, V. (2018). Deizm Kavramı ve Ortaya Çıkardığı Problemler. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 22(1), 33-40.
  • Baybars-Hawks, B., & Akser, M. (2012). Media and Democracy in Turkey: Toward a Model of Neoliberal Media Autocracy. Middle East Journal of Culture and Communication, 5(3), 302–321.
  • Borra, E., & Rieder, B. (2014). Programmed method: Developing a toolset for capturing and analyzing tweets. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 66(3), 262–278.
  • Boyd, D. (2011). Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp. 39–58). Routledge.
  • Böhürler, A. (2017, September 30). Din yorgunu gençler! Yeni Şafak. https://www.yenisafak.com/yazarlar/ayse-bohurler/din-yorgunu-gencler-2040378
  • Burrows, R., & Savage, M. (2014). After the crisis? Big Data and the methodological challenges of empirical sociology. Big Data & Society, 1(1).
  • Büyük, K. & Bozkurt, A. (2020). A Social Network Analysis of the July 15 Coup Attempt: Social Resistance, Network Patterns, and Collective Discourse. Bilig, (93), 1-28.
  • Bruns, A., & Burgess, J. (2016). Methodological innovation in precarious spaces: The case of Twitter. In Digital methods for social science (pp. 17-33). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
  • Bruns, A., & Moe, H. (2014). Structural layers of communication on Twitter. Twitter and society Digital formations, 89, 15-28.
  • Bulut, E., & Yörük, E. (2017). Mediatized populisms| digital populism: Trolls and political polarization of Twitter in Turkey. International Journal of Communication, 11, 25.
  • Çakır, E. (2018, April 3). Dindar Gençlik İsterken. Karar Gazetesi. https://www.karar.com/yazarlar/elif-cakir/dindar-genclik-isterken-6626
  • Ceron, A. (2017). Social media and political accountability: Bridging the gap between citizens and politicians. Springer.
  • Cioffi-Revilla, C. A. (2014). Introduction to computational social science: Principles and applications.
  • Çavdar, A. (2022). Never Walk Alone: The Politics of Unveiling in ‘New Turkey.’ In The Politics of Culture in Contemporary Turkey (pp. 172–190). Edinburgh University Press.
  • Cumhuriyet Gazetesi. (2018). Bahçeli’den “deizm” çıkışı. Cumhuriyet Cumhuriyet. https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/bahceliden-deizm-cikisi-956415
  • Jong, W. D., Shaw, M., & Stammers, N. (2005). Global activism, global media. Pluto Press.
  • Demir, Y. & Ayhan, B. (2020). Sosyal Medyanın Gündem Belirleyicileri: Twitter’da Gündem Belirleme Süreci Üzerine Bir Sosyal Ağ Analizi . İletişim Kuram ve Araştırma Dergisi, 2020 (51) , 1-19.
  • Doğu, B. (2020). Turkey’s news media landscape in Twitter: Mapping interconnections among diversity. Journalism, 21(5), 688–706.
  • Doğu, B. (2019). Environment as Politics: Framing the Cerattepe Protest in Twitter, Environmental Communication, 13:5, 617-632.
  • Dogu, B., & Mat, O. (2019). Who Sets the Agenda? Polarization and Issue Ownership in Turkey’s Political Twittersphere. International Journal of Communication, 13, 22.
  • Dorman, E. (2021). Tarihsel ve Teolojik Açıdan Deizm ve Eleştirisi. MİSBAH: Çağdaş Din Çalışmaları Dergisi, 10(18).
  • Düzgün, Ali, Ş. (2021). Deizm: Öncü İsimler ve Temel Doktrin. MİSBAH: Çağdaş Din Çalışmaları Dergisi, 10(18).
  • Eriksson, M. (2016). Managing collective trauma on social media: The role of Twitter after the 2011 Norway attacks. Media, Culture & Society, 38(3), 365-380.
  • Fazlıoğlu, İ. (2018). Prof. İhsan Fazlıoğlu: Mesele ciddi, başörtülü ateistler var! https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6hx6h6
  • Felski, R. (1989). Beyond feminist aesthetics: Feminist literature and social change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Furman, I. (2022). Challenges & opportunities of computational methodologies for Media Studies. 2. International Mediterranean Scientific Research and Innovation Congress, 1147–1153.
  • Furman, I., & Tunç, A. (2019). End of a Habermassian Ideal? Political Communication on Twitter during the night of the 2017 Turkish Constitutional Referendum. Policy & the Internet, 11(3).
  • Furman, I. O., Gürel, K. B., & Sivaslıoğlu, F. B. (2023). “As Reliable as a Kalashnikov Rifle”: How Sputnik News Promotes Russian Vaccine Technologies in the Turkish Twittersphere. Social Media + Society, 9(1).
  • Fraser, N. (2011). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. In C. J. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (Nachdr.). MIT Press.
  • Giglietto, F., Rossi, L., & Bennato, D. (2012). The Open Laboratory: Limits and Possibilities of Using Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube as a Research Data Source. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 30(3–4), 145–159.
  • Grandjean, M. (2016). A social network analysis of Twitter: Mapping the digital humanities community. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 3(1).
  • Gençlik ve İnanç. (2018). İKDAM Eğitim Derneği ve Uluslararası Öncü Eğitimciler Derneği. https://www.ikdam.org/genclik-ve-inanc-calistayi-sonuc-bildirisi/
  • Hecker, P. Furman, I. and Akyıldız, K. (2022). The Politics of Culture in Contemporary Turkey. Edinburgh University Press.
  • Jackson, S. J., & Foucault Welles, B. (2015). Hijacking #myNYPD: Social Media Dissent and Networked Counterpublics. Journal of Communication, 65(6), 932-952.
  • Jackson, S. J., & Foucault Welles, B. (2016). #Ferguson is everywhere: initiators in emerging counterpublic networks. Information, Communication & Society, 19(3), 397-418.
  • İspir, N. B. & Deniz, K. (2017). Kasim 2015 Genel Seçi̇mleri̇nde Köşe Yazarlarının Twi̇tter Gündemi̇ne Yöneli̇k Bi̇r Sosyal Ağ Anali̇zi Uygulaması. Kurgu, 25 (1).
  • Irak, D. (2016). A close-knit bunch: Political concentration in Turkey's Anadolu Agency through Twitter interactions. Turkish Studies, 17(2), 336-360.
  • Kardaş, M. Ö. (2023). The ‘ascendance’ of deism in Turkey: Context, drivers and debate. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 1–21.
  • Kobak, K. (2022). #TikTokkapansın Hareketi: Twitter’da Sosyal Ağ Analizi. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 11 (1) , 309-319 .
  • Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th Ed.). Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications.
  • Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010). What is Twitter, a social network, or a news media? Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web. WWW’10, New York.
  • Lazer, D., Pentland, A., Adamic, L., Aral, S., Barabasi, A.-L., Brewer, D., Christakis, N., Contractor, N., Fowler, J., Gutmann, M., Jebara, T., King, G., Macy, M., Roy, D., & Van Alstyne, M. (2009). SOCIAL SCIENCE: Computational Social Science. Science, 323(5915), 721–723.
  • Lord, C. (2018). Religious Politics in Turkey: From the Birth of the Republic to the AKP. Cambridge University Press.
  • Malçok, T. (2022). Enquêter sur la reconnaissance des sensibilités athées en Turquie contemporaine. European Journal of Turkish Studies. Social Sciences on Contemporary Turkey.
  • Murthy, D. (2011). Twitter: Microphone for the masses?. Media, Culture & Society, 33(5), 779–789.
  • Neuendorf, K. A. (2017). The content analysis guidebook. SAGE Publications.
  • Ozduzen, O., & McGarry, A. (2020). Digital traces of “twitter revolutions”: Resistance, polarization, and surveillance via contested images and texts of Occupy Gezi. International Journal of Communication, 14, 2543-2563.
  • Puschmann, C., & Burgess, J. (2014). Big Data, Big Questions| Metaphors of Big Data. International Journal of Communication, 8(0).
  • Saka, E. (2018). Social Media in Turkey as a Space for Political Battles: AKTrolls and other Politically motivated trolling. Middle East Critique, 27(2), 161–177.
  • Sakaki, T., Okazaki, M., & Matsuo, Y. (2010). Earthquake shakes Twitter users: Real-time event detection by social sensors. 851.
  • Savage, M., & Burrows, R. (2007). The Coming Crisis of Empirical Sociology. Sociology, 41(5), 885–899.
  • Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. SAGE Publications.
  • Sevgi, H. (2021). Sosyal Ağ Analizi Ile Işçi Konfederasyonlarinin Twitter Etkinliğinin Incelenmesi: Hollanda Ve Türkiye Örneği. Sosyal Güvence, 0 (18) , 374-396.
  • Siapera, E. (2014). Tweeting# Palestine: Twitter and the mediation of Palestine. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 17(6), 539-555.
  • Smith, M., Rainie, L., Shneiderman, B., & Himelboim, I. (2014). Mapping Twitter Topic Networks: From Polarized Crowds to Community Clusters. Washington, DC, USA: Pew Research Center, in association with the Social Media Research Foundation.
  • Sözeri, C. (2011). Does social media reduce “corporate media influence” on journalism?: The Case of Turkish Media. Estudos Em Comunicação, 10, 71.
  • Sözeri, E. K. (2015). Mapping Turkey’s Twitter-troll lynch mobs. https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/turkey-twitter-trolls/
  • Subaşı, N. (2017). Din yorgunluğu ya da gündelik popüler kültürün tükettiği “İslâmî” yorumlar. İçinde M. Ak & H. Cansız (Eds.), Gelenek ve modernite arasında İslam yorumları. Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  • TRT. (2018, April 12). Diyanet İşleri Başkanı Erbaş’tan önemli açıklamalar. In TRT Haber. https://www.diyanet.gov.tr/tr-TR/Kurumsal/Detay/11462/diyanet-isleri-baskani-erbastan-trt-haberde-onemli-aciklamalar
  • Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. Yale University Press.
  • Tuğal, C. (2016). The Fall of the Turkish Model: How the Arab Uprisings Brought Down Islamic Liberalism. Verso Books.
  • Tunç, A. (2014). Can Pomegranates Replace Penguins? Social Media and the Rise of Citizen Journalism in Turkey. Freedom House.
  • Ural, H. (2021). The Resonant Chants of Networked Discourse: Affective Publics and the Muslim Self in Turkey. International Journal of Communication, 15, 21.
  • Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393(6684), 440–442.
  • Williams, M. L., Burnap, P., & Sloan, L. (2017). Towards an ethical framework for publishing Twitter data in social research: Taking into account users’ views, online context and algorithmic estimation. Sociology, 51(6), 1149-1168.
  • Yeşil, B. (2018). Authoritarian Turn or Continuity? Governance of Media through Capture and Discipline in the AKP Era. South European Society and Politics, 23(2), 239–257.
There are 71 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Mass Media
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Ivo Ozan Furman 0000-0002-7538-2694

Kaya Akyıldız 0000-0002-9586-5386

Early Pub Date June 22, 2023
Publication Date June 30, 2023
Acceptance Date April 27, 2023
Published in Issue Year 2023Issue: 38

Cite

APA Furman, I. O., & Akyıldız, K. (2023). Mapping Anti-Diyanet Oppositional Publics During the 2018 Deism Controversy on Turkish Twitter. Galatasaray Üniversitesi İletişim Dergisi(38), 30-58. https://doi.org/10.16878/gsuilet.1314765
 Download Cover Image

Creative Commons LisansıTRDizinlogo_live-e1586763957746.png