Suchergebnisse

Thanks to its geopolitical and strategic location, Anatolia has hosted numerous rich cultures from the prehistoric eras up until today. While the political conflicts and the socio-economic changes that these cultures experienced throughout history caused the end of an era, they also laid the groundwork for the beginning of a new era. As a matter of fact, this cultural cycle can also be seen in the collapse of the Great Hittite Empire in 1190 BC and the Iron Ages that began after the collapse. Blended with numerous cultures from Urartian's in the east, Phrygians and Lydian's in the west, Late Hittite Empires in the southeast to Middle Assyrian Empire and Neo-Assyrian Empire, Iron Age is dated between 1190-330 BC. Pottery findings belonging to the 850-year period, which consists of the Middle and Late Iron Ages, constitute the subject of our study. In this context, 27 pieces of ceramics, most of which were brought to the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations by purchasing from Burdur and Isparta regions and from there to Alanya Museum, were examined. Each ceramic was classified chronologically and typologically within its own period and was attempted to be introduced scientifically by comparing it with similar samples

This paper argues that by portraying minority concerns primarily as cultural concerns and by discussing minority existence independently of capitalism, neoliberalism, feminism, environmentalism,
globalization, and the distinction between the Right and the Left, the dominant discourse on ethno-cultural minorities, namely multiculturalism, may lead to the reduction of minority communities to cultural entities in the collective consciousness of the dominant majority. Such reductionism endangers minority existence by identifying the question of minorities with the question of culture to the point that minorities voicing their noncultural political concerns increasingly appear unintelligible, presumptuous, or even destructive to wider society. Against this background, the paper discusses why and how ethno-cultural minorities may find their collective identity in different, not necessarily ethno-cultural, political formations in the age of neoliberal globalism, such as anti-neoliberal, anti-globalist, cosmopolitan, environmentalist, anti-capitalist, feminist, radical democratic, republican, and anti-imperialist. This discussion is based on Ernesto Laclau's and Chantal Mouffe's understanding of hegemony and social antagonism.

With worldwide progress, development and diversification come tensions between individual, local, national, and global identities, and the fight for equality and justice and opposition to discrimination. Iran is no different, but little has been written about the historical, current, and future identities of Iran's ethnic groups. This study looks at the Azeris, Kurds, Arabs, and Baloch alongside the Persian ethnic identity, which is predominant in modern Iran and which many claim is upheld politically and socially as the ideal for a future, collective Iranian ethnic identity, promoting discrimination against different ethnic identities. This theory is grounded by conducting and analysing in-depth questionnaires across 13 Iranian provinces in relation to religious, local, and national identities; inter-ethnic cultural borders; hindrances to progressive movements; the purging of certain ethnic cultures; and possible steps to resolve crises. Some data has been extracted from the author's recently published book, From Border to Border: Comprehensive research study on identity and ethnicity in Iran. This data presents practical steps to achieving stable, equitable and sustainable cultural, social, economic, legal, and political conditions in Iran, based on the results of questionnaires. Taken into consideration is the realization of economic, socio-cultural, and political justice and indiscriminate social welfare, promoting interethnic solidarity and justice in the media, separating the legal and political systems from religious and ethno-centric thought in acknowledgement of the diversity of religious identities in Iran, and implementing the pending articles of the Constitution.

In this study, Kemal Tahir's thoughts on Marxism and socialism are discussed in comparison with the left orthodoxy of the 1960s. The main motivating factor for the study is that Kemal Tahir's distinctive features from the orthodoxy of the period in terms of his thoughts on Marxism and socialism and the emphasis on his criticism will make an important contribution to the literature. Therefore, it focuses on the question "What are the features that differentiate Kemal Tahir's view of Marxism and socialism from his contemporary intellectuals?". Due to the characteristics of his intellectual heritage, the study has been prepared through the literature review based on careful examination of primary sources and the comparative method that provides determining the context of the data. The main argument put forward by the study is that what makes Kemal Tahir original and different in terms of his thoughts and criticisms is his understanding of Marxism in particular, and of science or scientific way of thinking in general sense. From the point of the socialist thoughts and movements, this study that presents the left orthodoxy of the 1960s on issues such as Marxism, socialism, society, the issue of development, the strategy of power and the envisioned socialist order within a theoretical and conceptual framework consisting of "high modernism", "scientism" and "political religions" contains the ideas of the party and opinion leaders of the three most representative and influential formations of the 1960s: Turkish Labour Party, National Democratic Revolution Movement and Yön (Destination) Movement. While Kemal Tahir's thoughts differ from these formations at some certain points, it should also be emphasized that despite all its differences, they have a paradigmatic similarity with the orthodoxy of the period in terms of her modernization strategy based on the distinction between culture and civilization.