Are we really headed towards a ‘feminist autocracy’?
by
Nurhayat Kızılkan*

 In his article, Bulaç draws attention to the possible negative implications of positive discrimination for women and he is actually consistent with his previous general opinions regarding the same issue. However, I argue in this article, that he is inconsistent with his own arguments regarding modernity.

For more than two decades Bulaç’s opinions and style have generally generated anger in the women’s rights movement, which is affected by both modern and post-modern approaches. In his article last week, Bulaç complained about a modernity that is shifting, he argues, towards “a female-centered culture.” His words might very well be interpreted as the viewpoint of some conservative/religious groups; however, I am not sure that most of the women in this very same group agree with him, let alone women in secular circles. On the other hand, Bulaç pays no attention to overcoming modernity, which is a problem for all human beings who are oppressed by it, including feminists. But it is time to discuss these issues in a much more serious way. First, I will discuss discrepancies in his arguments, and then I will argue that male-centered modernity does not become female-centered, but rather enters a new period, one of post-modernity diffusing.

First of all, Bulaç exaggerates the utopia that allegedly existed in pre-modern time. What’s more, Bulaç stands behind his assertion that the strict domination of men over women is in fact a product of modern civilization. In other words, he actually says that in pre-modern times this was not the case. In order to prove that this was not just some fanciful piece of imagination on his part, he would have to try pretty hard though. When it comes to trying to define what the concept of family means, Bulaç is also very confused. Unfortunately, the very family structure whose importance he tries to underscore is not in fact one that is distinguished by its principles of equality, but rather one that maintains its male-centric understanding, and which is thus perfectly primed for the creation of male domination. Thus Bulaç, in taking a stand to protect the institution of “family” based not upon all people, but rather upon his own gender, winds up, as a Muslim, doing damage to the concept of justice, which is in itself the concept he asserts is the most important of all.

A 200-year gap

In his article, Bulaç states from the very beginning that modernity is in itself male-centered, but then later he goes on to affirm that society is now losing its “human-centered axis” and drifting towards a new, more “female-centered” era. If we were not to dismiss as empty allegations Bulaç’s claims that the pre-modern era was one that was “human-centered,” then what meaning are we meant to attribute to his skipping over of nearly 200 years of modernization and a period of “male-centered axis” that comes with it? We are confused when it comes to interpreting whether Bulaç’s problem is with male-centered modernity, or with the transformation of modernity into a “female-centered” state. The most important point here, though, is Bulaç’s assertion that feminists will essentially not reach any point different from where they stand today; while he gives them several centuries to do so, he is essentially admitting to the male-centered societal structure that is in place today. And with this admission, Bulaç arrives back at the same point he was at before with feminists; this structure is a male-centered, modern structure.

Bulaç asserts that one result of positive discrimination is that some unqualified women may achieve certain professional positions on the sole basis of their gender, thereby placing at risk the quality of many aspects of the entire modern system as a whole. For some reason though, Bulaç doesn’t discuss the fact that in a system which is male-dominated, the power and strength enjoyed by males in society also means that they often wind up in positions which they do not necessarily deserve, but which are given to them because they of their gender.

What’s more, Bulaç’s assertions that there will be a “drop in quality” in the professional world if positive discrimination boosts the numbers of working women is in direct contradiction to his earlier assertion that he is opposed to modernity. He simultaneously criticizes modernity as such, but also professes much worry and concern for its future continuation in the event that many “meritless” women start taking jobs from men. The truth, however, is that not only do countries where women work in the highest positions not experience any such drop in quality, they are, quite to the contrary, leading nations when it comes to quality. Any argument that asserts that women (or for that matter handicapped people, or people of any particular ethnic group) should be left out of the workforce because their entrance into that workforce would mean a drop in quality is not an argument befitting of a serious journalist. What’s more, it would seem that in his use of these arguments, Bulaç is saying that, as he sees it, it is males (as long as they are not handicapped in any way) that are the center of the labor force. And thus, he is defending a violation of human rights on the basis of trying to defend workforce productivity and prevent a decrease in quality; this is an approach that is actually the product itself of a market-oriented perspective. And so, while Bulaç asserts that he is in fact criticizing modernity, he winds up defending a market-oriented approach that has actually been imposed by modernity. And while Bulaç discusses the potential problems to be wrought by the taking up of positions by people just because they are women, why do we hear no complaints from Bulaç, who after all embraces a Muslim view on justice, when it comes to the fact that qualified women have a much more difficult time than men finding jobs, or that when women do get jobs they often get paid lower salaries than their male counterparts in the same positions?

Turkey: Where Western equals ‘modern’

We can produce several questions similar to these, however, I would now like to go into detail about his basic misconception. In Turkey, Western ideas are assumed to be synonymous with what is “modern.” Like several non-Western countries, in Turkey, which is often defined as “a bridge between East and West,” there are approaches that argue that Western ideas have had a corrupting effect on the purity of the original cultures of the country. These discourses speak of a return to the past to recapture all that was valued and sacred in our own partially lost traditions. There are social, political factors encouraging these discourses as a way to overcome “the modern.” However, we do not expect nor like a duplication of the past and simple traditionalism. We expect something new and different. Moreover, the discrepancies between modern meta-narratives, which surround us and our traditional belief systems, are ignored in several cases. That is to say, we live lives filled with incoherent combinations of the modern and the irrational. However, when the issue is women, our lack of awareness disappears. While these approaches reject Western truth claims, they do not hesitate to affirm their own truth and argue its superiority over any other. Instead of deconstructing and dismissing it, they try to replace it with a local and original author, but the problem remains: Both of them are equally hegemonic. Feminists do not agree with the modern Enlightenment version of truth because they are assumed to be grounded in a male point of view, which is believed to be competitive and rational instead of emotional, caring and intuitive. Therefore, the male-dominated modern view is not acceptable to feminists. Thus, accordingly one can argue that if Bulaç is at war with modernity, as he claims to be, he must be on the same side as feminists, at least on some points.

What is clear is that Bulaç looks at the social movement alive on the feminist street and thinks that it is in theory a modern structure. But he is wrong. Feminism is not actually completely at ease with modernity; its objective realities can be much more easily realized within the parameters of post-modernism. Certain truths of feminism, such as the realities that derive simply from being a woman (such as rape or being on the receiving end of domestic violence), must not be viewed like other ordinary realities and must not be treated with straight rationality. Feminism is quite aware that within the framework of modernity, certain truths will be kept in order, and that the special place called for by its own reality will not be achieved, and that quite simply, a male-oriented world will not allow for this to happen. So feminists are in loud and joyful agreement with post-modernists when it comes to the subject of objective reality, but they are likewise engaged in a great struggle with modernists when it comes to the very existence of these ideas. In fact, they try to challenge the objective realities presented by the modern world. The struggle put forward by feminism also includes an opposition to the epistemological approaches used by the academic and modern social science communities, and attempts to place feminism as a movement in a stronger category, with a stronger voice to be heard. Feminism, in other words, is waging a modern struggle. In essence, if there is any inconsistency in post-modern feminism, this is it. However, the problem is that feminists inevitably argue the superiority of their own point of view. Because if truth is relative and all truths are equal, then there is no objective means to make a distinction between right and wrong views, and then all that remains is the power in our hands to come to a decision regarding whose perspective will succeed. And everybody knows that women have historically had very little power, similar to other marginalized groups. If the existing modernity is male-centered, then women will never obtain enough power to be recognized as subjects. Therefore, women need some positive discrimination similar to other oppressed groups who want to become subjects. Consequently, I argue that we have entered into a post-modern time rather than what Bulaç indicates: a female-centered modernity. At this time, instead of the powerful male subject, we can talk about the return of new subjects, with an emphasis on plurality. Consequently, we can talk about the subjects including not only women, especially pious women who Bulaç complains about the most, but other oppressed groups. These groups are the indications of a new time; they are the post-modern individuals as a substitute for the modern male subject.

* Nurhayat Kızılkan is a writer and instructor at Fatih University’s department of Sociology.