New Islamic movements and amodern networks

Gokhan Bacik * and Umit Kurt ** 


Abstract

The revival in Islamic studies of interest in explaining social transformation in Muslim societies has stimulated a need for new methodological inquiries. The deployment of informal institutions within daily life is also a rediscovery of the traditional Islamic networks, patterns, values and cognitive forms. The rise of daily life as the major unit of operation for the new Islamic movements directs them to a completely different position vis-a-vis modernity: to create an alternative Islamic civil society, that is indifferent to the existing modern one. The Gulen Movement, with its success at creating trans-national networks, is the perspicuous case for illustrating the amodern world view of new Islamic movements. Study of the Gulen Movement on the basis of its amodernity is a methodology that contributes also to the study of how Islam is reproduced in daily life despite modern challenges. Such a study makes a necessity, in any research agenda, of the acknowledgement of the amodern in the sociology of religion. The major contribution of this paper is to display how Islamic movements develop an irregular position towards modernity. Therefore, the validity of traditional binaries, such as ‘Islamic movements vs. modernity’, or ‘Islamic movements as products of modernity’, has to be questioned. Being indifferent to the state and operating through daily life, new Islamic movements gain the ability to connect with historical Islam, the roots of which had fixed well before those of modernity.
Keywords: Islam; amodernity; the Gulen movement; informalism

The revival in Islamic studies of interest in explaining social transformation in Muslim societies has stimulated a need for new methodological inquiries. The binary of Islam and civil society, a repeated thesis, has taken the study of Islam out of the civilian domain and juxtaposed Islamic movements and states (Gellner 1996). However, recent studies, Turkish ones especially, have concluded that Islamic movements are successful without any state agenda. Accordingly, new Islamic movements base their ‘mobilisation strategy on transforming everyday practices’ rather than following the former Islamist way of developing political agendas (Tuğal 2009). The focus on daily life reminds the strategic role of informal networks. New Islamic movements, as the agents of daily life, operate mainly through informal networks. This results in a perception of informal institutions as functional or problem solving and entails a recognition of their positive role in providing solutions to the various problems of social interaction (Halmke and Levitsky 2004). Indeed, the new Islamic movements’ informalism is a deviation from the hallmarks of modern society, such as calculability, formalism and the separation of the market and the state (Misztal 2000). The deployment of informal institutions within daily life is also a rediscovery of the traditional Islamic networks, patterns, values and cognitive forms. Thus, the rise of daily life as the major unit of operation for the new Islamic movements directs them to a completely different position vis-a-vismodernity: to create an alternative Islamic civil society, that is indifferent to the existing modern one. In the past, some radical Islamists had completely rejected modernity. Others, paradoxically, modernised part of their political agenda to sympathise with the state and nationalism. However, the new Islamic movements ply their mobilisation strategy in daily life contexts and situate themselves in an irregular position to modernity. Their amodern (neither modern nor anti-modern) position creates its own parallel sphere founded on the traditional patterns of Islam.

The Gülen Movement, with its success at creating trans-national networks, is the perspicuous case for illustrating the a modern world view of new Islamic movements. Fethullah Gülen is an influential Islamic scholar whose ideas activate millions not only in Turkey but also around the globe (Yavuz and Esposito 2003; Ünal 2000). His Movement is described as ‘the largest Islamic movement in Turkey and the most widely recognised and effective one internationally’ (Turam 2004, 265). This Movement is successful at deploying its discursive and material instruments in a number of countries, among them are the ones as different as Thailand and Macedonia (Sevindi and Abu-rabi’ 2008). How can this Movement activate large masses and realise complex trans-national projects, both of which require sophisticated discourse, persuasion, planning and other social and material procedures? The study of the social dynamics through which the Gülen Movement operates is the natural unit of analysis for any inquiry that seeks an answer to such questions.

‘Movement’ studies provide a wide of range of theories to explicate the successes of social movements, as well as their transformation and decay. This paper proposes that it is mainly the amodern trait of the Gülen Movement, particularly evident in its engagement with religion-based networks that makes this Movement globally successful. ‘Amodern’ refers to the traditional networks, symbols, values, institutions, patterns and cognitive forms that pre-date modernity, yet retain the capacity to be effective among people, and for that reason, the ability to transcend the separated forms of modernity.

Study of the Gülen Movement on the basis of its amodernity is a methodology that contributes also to the study of how Islam is reproduced in daily life despite modern challenges. Beyond the traditional debate about Islam and modernity, a critical point of analysis is how Islam preserves its traditional forms of identity, legitimacy and cognitive models in their traditional patterns. That is, study of the Gülen Movement reveals the details of how new Islamic movements operate in daily life and how they activate the traditional informal networks. Such a study makes a necessity, in any research agenda, of the acknowledgement of the amodern in the sociology of religion. The major contribution of this paper is to display how Islamic movements develop an irregular position towards modernity. Therefore, the validity of traditional binaries, such as ‘Islamic movements vs. modernity’, or ‘Islamic movements as products of modernity’, has to be questioned. Being indifferent to the state and operating through daily life, new Islamic movements gain the ability to connect with historical Islam, the roots of which had fixed well before those of modernity.


Read More!