Birbirinin yerine kullanılan iki farklı kavram: dünyevileşme ve sekülerleşme
Two different concepts that used interchangebly: worldlinization and secularization
Yazar: Ertit, Volkan; Çifçi, Osman Zahid
Dergi: Bilimname, Vol. 2021 No. 44, 2020
Anahtar kelimeler: Sociology of religion,Aworldliness,Worldlinization,Secularization,Worldly,Secular ; Din sosyolojisi,Adünyevilik,Dünyevileşme,Sekülerleşme,Dünyevi,Seküler

Türkiye’de dünyevileşme ve sekülerleşme kavramları hem akademik metinlerde hem de medyada birbirinin yerine kullanılmaktadır. Bu makale ise “dünyevileşme=sekülerleşme” denkleminin indirgemeci olduğunu ve terk edilmesi gerektiğini savunmaktadır. Doğaüstü alanın toplumsal gücünün azalması olan sekülerleşme ile dünya nimetlerine yönelme anlamına gelen dünyevileşme iki farklı süreci imlemektedir. Bir bireyin sekülerleşmesi onun dünyevileşmesi ile sonuçlanmak zorunda olmadığı gibi, dünyevileşen her bireyin sekülerleşme zorunluluğu da yoktur. Bu iki kavramın aynı anlama gelecek şekilde kullanılmasının yarattığı sıkıntıları aşabilmek için makalemiz yeni bir kavram öneriyor ve bu kavram üzerinden yeni tipolojiler ortaya koyuyor. Önerilen yeni kavram “adünyevilik”tir. Makalede adünyevilik, dünyevi karşıtı olarak, yani dünyevi arzu/hırsları olmayan şeklinde ancak uhrevi ile eş anlamlı olmadan kullanılmaktadır. Bu durumda -iddia edilenin aksine- bir bireyin hem seküler hem de adünyevi olabileceği okuyucuya sunuluyor. Türkiye’de ise akademik metinler ve gazetelerin tartışma sayfaları uhrevilik/dünyevilik dikotomosi üzerinden tartışmaları yürütmektedir. Üçüncü bir yaşam tarzı olarak bir bireyin hem seküler olup hem de her iki dünyanın (öte-dünya ve bu-dünya) nimetlerine ilgi duymayabileceği yok sayılmaktadır. Bu makale ise bu mantık örgüsüne “adünyevi” kavramı ile karşı çıkmakta ve bu sebeple dünyevileşme ve sekülerleşme kavramlarının arz ettikleri farklılıkları betimlemek için dört farklı tipolojiyi okuyucuya sunmaktadır. Bu tipolojilere göre bir birey hem seküler hem de dünyevi (A Tipolojisi), hem deseküler hem dünyevi (B tipolojisi), hem seküler hem “adünyevi” (C Tipolojisi) ve hem deseküler hem de adünyevi (D tipolojisi) olabilir.

Secularization is a rather new concept for the Turkish public. While the changes/transformations related to religion and society in Turkey are generally explained or discussed through the concepts of Islamization, secularization, conservatization and Iranization, especially in the 2010s, the concepts of secularization and its antonym desecularization began to be used more frequently in academic texts, traditional media and social media.However, the fact that the concept of secularization has been receiving more exposure in academic texts or used more frequently in printed and visual media does not mean that the semantic framework of the concept is always presented accurately. On the contrary, secularization is presented in conjunction with other concepts in the media and some works that reach a wide audience in Turkey. One of these concepts is “worldlinization”. Particularly in academic texts and the media, these two concepts are used synonymously, or one of the concepts is parenthesized for the reader to derive an interchangeable meaning.The present study claims that these two concepts should not be used synonymously in order to prevent a contradiction in terms. As a concept, secularization means “secularization is the relative decrease in the social prestige and social influence of the dominant supernatural realm (that is, religions, folk beliefs, religion-like structures, magic, and so forth) within a defined period of time and in a particular place” (Ertit, 2019: 47). As can be noticed, the concept of secularization is not based on religion, but also the supernatural realm that comprises religion as well. Contrary to popular belief, the opposite of the secularization process is not religionization, but rather desecularization, which partially involves the process of religionization.Worldlinization, on the other hand, can be defined as being keen on worldly possessions as if there is no afterlife, preferring worldly possessions to heavenly blessings, and making worldly demands knowing that one's life in the hereafter would be placed under risk despite declaring belief in Islam and even fulfilling the necessary rituals.In this case, secularization, which refers to the decreased influence of any supernatural teaching on daily life, and worldlinization, which means prioritizing worldly life and being keen on worldly possessions and statuses with a disregard of the afterlife, cannot be interchangeable. In order for the discussion to become meaningful, it seems necessary to propose a new concept and produce typologies over this concept.The concept proposed in the present study is aworldly. This concept will be used as the opposite of worldly, but not synonymously with ethereal. Although there is an opposition between ethereal and worldly in the religious literature, it is aimed to create a second dichotomy with the concept aworldly the present study. It can be said that this dichotomy underlies the inability to use worldlinization in place of secularization. That is because there may be individuals or groups who do not demand anything worldly despite arranging their daily lives independently of a supernatural reference (being secular). Although these individuals are secular (since they have no supernatural reference), they cannot be regarded as worldly since they are also aworldly (since they are distanced from worldly ambitions and desires). Being distanced from worldly ambitions and desires does not necessarily mean that an individual is religious or prioritizes the afterlife. Having a disregard for the afterlife does not necessarily mean having “great ambitions regarding worldly life” as well. For this reason, the ethereal-worldly dichotomy may exclude one group: aworldly-secular individuals. In other words, individuals who do not base their lives on the blessings of either world.