“When we look at the Gulen Movement from a diaspora perspective, it is impossible to talk about a straightforward and singular process. There are no sound academic studies on this yet, but experts on the subject indicate that it may be quite challenging to fully apply the term ‘diaspora’ to the phase leading up to the July 15 coup attempt…”
Today, let me start by introducing William Safran.
William Safran, originally from Germany (Dresden), is a prominent scholar in diaspora studies and one of the figures who developed the modern theoretical framework of the diaspora concept. Safran is particularly known for his work on diaspora identity, belonging, and cultural attachment. By examining the identities of diaspora communities, their relationships with their homelands, and how these relationships are shaped in host countries, Safran has made significant contributions to our understanding of the diaspora concept.
One of Safran’s most important contributions to the study of diaspora is his identification of the common characteristics of diaspora communities. These characteristics include maintaining ties with the homeland, preserving cultural and religious heritage, the desire to return, and a collective sense of identity. By defining these characteristics, Safran solidified the concept of diaspora in academic literature and laid the foundation for future research in this field.
Safran’s work on defining the diaspora concept and analyzing the social, cultural, and political impacts of these communities serves as a cornerstone for diaspora studies today. Safran examined the dual loyalty of diaspora communities to both their homeland and their host societies, highlighting how this dual loyalty is maintained. His work is crucial for understanding the dynamics of diaspora communities. His 1991 article, “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return,” was particularly groundbreaking for the field.
William Safran identified the following fundamental characteristics of diaspora communities:
- Dispersal from an original center to two or more foreign regions.
- A collective memory or myth about the homeland.
- A belief in not being fully accepted by the host society.
- Viewing the homeland as the ideal home and desiring to return.
- A collective commitment to the restoration and security of the homeland.
- A continuing relationship with the homeland.
These six common characteristics form the basis of the classic diaspora definition and are used as reference points in nearly all diaspora studies.
When we look at the “Gulen Movement,” or, as Mr. Gulen dislikes calling it, the ‘Gulen Movement,’ from a diaspora perspective, it is impossible to talk about a straightforward and singular process. There are no sound academic studies on this yet, but experts on the subject indicate that it may be quite challenging to fully apply the term ‘diaspora’ to the phase leading up to the July 15 coup attempt. At least, I have come across a few such comments. Since there seems to be no one within the movement particularly interested in these matters, I guess they don’t worry much about it—oh well!
We have Safran’s fundamental characteristics of diaspora as a reference. However, applying these characteristics uniformly to the entire 60-year process of the movement would be unjust. Therefore, I will divide the process into three phases. Two of these phases are related to the diaspora, while one pertains to the formation and development of the movement.
This article will focus on the last two phases.
First, let’s outline the timeline of these phases.
The first phase likely began with the sermons at Kestanepazarı in Izmir, marking the construction period. This roughly corresponds to the year 1966 and extends to 1991, the year when the Turkish Republics gained independence following the dissolution of Russia. We’re talking about a period of approximately 25 years.
The second phase is the outward expansion phase from 1991 to 2016, the year of the coup attempt. Again, this is a 25-year period. It is not possible to consider the first phase within the diaspora context. However, we will briefly examine this second phase in relation to the diaspora.
The third and final phase is from July 15 to the present. In my humble opinion, this last 10-year phase (assuming the forced exits abroad began in 2014) can definitely be described as a diaspora.
I’ll keep today’s article short…
In the next article, we will address the first two phases. However, I should note that the real treasure (festivity) will be in the third phase…
