(Cont’d from part 1)
The Gülen Movement’s Transnational Educational Activities
...Fethullah Gülen propagates a kind of ‘educational Islamism’ as opposed to a ‘political Islamism’ (Agai, 2003 p50). Furthermore, education curricula should emphasize science and technology as much, or more than, they incorporate faith teaching. Gülen also advocates the transmission of spiritual, moral and behavioral values, of tolerance, respect, openness, and the like.
Through the internalized spiritual transformation of individuals will come a wider social transformation and, at least in Islamic societies (including Turkey) in which Gülen institutions operate, a (re-) ‘Islamisation’ of modernity. Thus, politics in Turkey and perhaps in other Islamic societies in which the movement operates should be ‘Islamized’ only via a bottom-up process and indirectly, in which people and state are reunited in a kind of organic way, through a shared attachment to and internalization of faith. In this sense, the Gülen movement’s mission in the Islamic societies in which it operates can be said to be a political project, but one that aspires to achieve its goals indirectly. People of faith as well as learning, a ‘Golden Generation’, should be cultivated and encouraged to dedicate their lives to the service (hizmet) of the people. It is an approach that resembles a kind of ‘long march through the institutions’, and Turkey’s secular establishment, and some secularists elsewhere, are occasionally unsettled by it.
.. We should be wary of excessive generalization concerning the nature and impact of the Gülen movement’s activities abroad. Largely as a consequence of its devolved and voluntaristic nature, the precise characteristics of each establishment might differ just as the motives behind their establishment can vary (Peuch, 2004b). It might also be that from the mid-1990s onwards the movement, or at any rate Gülen’s own thinking, shifted from a chauvinistic Turkish Islamic identity towards ‘global educational activities that encourage the national identities of the countries in which it is operating’ (Agai, 2003 p63). In this context, it is worth noting that the movement has a presence in the form of a variety of educational institutions in around fifty countries, and now supervises as many or more schools abroad as it does in Turkey – in excess of 150, although the unstructured nature of the movement means no precise figure can be given. Gülen schools and other educational establishments are globally far-flung, and can be found in such places as the Balkans, Russia, Armenia, the US, Australia, China, Cambodia, sub-Saharan Africa, India, and in western countries where Turkish minorities are located, such as Germany and France. Indeed, in western Europe the movement’s schools have served to reinforce or preserve Turkish and Muslim identities otherwise vulnerable to dilution and distortion as a result of interaction with host societies, although the simultaneous commitment to accommodation to and tolerance of host country customs is strong (Bilir, 2004: Irvine, 2006).
…It should also be noted that, wherever they are found, Gülen educational establishments abide by local curricula requirements. They do not directly propagate Islam, but rather emphasize virtues such as respect for elders, politeness, modesty, and hard work. In other words, they teach by example. As elsewhere, this approach accounts for the popularity of Gülen schools in Africa, where there are over fifty Turkish schools in thirty countries, many of them in largely Christian sub-Saharan Africa. It is difficult to assess, however, what the ultimate impact might be of a globally-scattered body of well-behaved, hard-working, well-educated individuals with a knowledge of and sympathy with Turkish culture. It is hardly likely to do harm to Turkey’s image and interests abroad, or to the more general cause of global understanding and tolerance. On the other hand, the relative scale of the Gülen movement’s presence is so small, and Turkey’s footprint in such regions otherwise so light, that it is hard to see what measurable good it might do either.
Interfaith Dialogue
In its sponsorship and support for interfaith and inter-civilizational dialogue, the Gülen movement seeks both to counter the impact of the more violent fundamentalist strains in modern Islam and to undermine wherever it can Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilizations’ thesis. These are transnational activities, but are global in their reach and potential impact. Fethullah Gülen’s championing of interfaith dialogue has varied and complex roots. In part it springs from a profound recognition and embrace of the shared theological origins of Islam, Christianity and Judaism – although in his appeal for interfaith dialogue and tolerance Gülen incorporates Buddhism and Hinduism too – and the Prophet’s injunction to respect the ‘people of the book’. The transcendental quality of faith itself is for Gülen a unifying force that outweighs theological differences. His commitment to dialogue with the western or Judeo-Christian world is also related to his admiration for western modernity, liberalism and technological and economic prowess, and his belief that the Islamic world can and should adopt elements of the west’s dynamism. Gülen’s explicit references to the ‘Global Village’ express an assumption that the phenomena of globalization have so bound together the fates of peoples that conflict between them serves no-one’s interests. Characteristically, he again draws upon the multi-faith and multi-cultural example of the Ottoman Empire, which he adduces as evidence of and inspiration for the capacity of diverse peoples to live together harmoniously and fruitfully. The empire was officially tolerant towards its non-Muslim subjects, and sought to incorporate many western practices, such as female education, the rule of law, and constitutionalism, in addition to its technology. It is fitting, therefore, that the Gülen movement’s dialogue activities focus on interfaith relations within Turkey as well as at the regional and global levels.
If judged by the words and thoughts of Fethullah Gülen, his movement not only embraces globalization, but also seeks to contribute to and shape its direction. However, little is achieved by words and thoughts alone. More substantively, Gülen met with Pope John Paul II in Rome in 1998, and has also met with Patriarch Barthelomew, head of the Greek Orthodox Fener Patriarchate in Istanbul, the former Chief Rabbi of Turkey’s Jewish community David Aseo, and with numerous other high-profile Jewish and Christian figures. Tracing the range of interfaith activities of the Gülen movement is difficult, given its devolved nature and its sometimes coy approach to self-publicity, but the movement has sponsored or contributed to, and sometimes dominates, a confusing diversity of often overlapping interfaith organizations. Many of the movement’s interfaith platforms are US based, perhaps partly owing to the considerable market for interfaith dialogue among segments of the large actively Christian US population. Examples are the Institute of Interfaith Dialog (www.interfaithdialog.org) and the Interfaith Cultural Organization (www.uga.edu/ifco). The Gülen movement takes the credit for organizing the Inter-Civilization Dialogue Conference in 1997 to counter the ‘Clash of Civilizations’ thesis. In 1998 it initiated the annual Eurasian Meetings, and in Turkey it has brought together leaders of the three Abrahamic religious communities (Kuru, 2005 p.263). The movement also claims to have provided much of the inspiration for the European Union- Organization of Islamic Conference summit in Istanbul in 2002, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks (Kosebalaban, 2003 pp181-182)Conclusion
…It is evident that the Gülen movement is a transnational actor on a major scale, through both its educational and its interfaith programs. Its non-state nature is clear and its global reach substantial. Its activities will impact on ‘the Clash of Civilizations’ and the evolution and image of Islam in the modern world. It stands to play a substantial role in the evolution of the Turkic world, in terms of its cultural unity, its modernity, and the role Islam assumes in the region. It has become part of Turkey’s face abroad and an expression of Turkey’s ‘soft power’ in particular. In this respect, it could offer to much of the Islamic world a more digestible and accessible ‘model’ for development and democratization than that usually associated with Turkey’s ardently secular Republic. Yet the movement’s transnationalism is in some respects bounded, limited in its scope, reach and impact by the prioritization inherent in the movement’s various activities. Its disproportionately heavy presence in the Turkic world is more than matched by its seeming indifference to the non-Turkic Islamic world, especially its Arab neighborhood – much of which, it must be said, is unlikely to welcome its presence in any case. Its educational elitism leaves many – perhaps those most in need of its services – untouched, both inside and beyond Turkey. Its interfaith dialogue too focuses largely on the cultivation of those (mostly in the west) who share its commitment to such activities. It leaves those who do not share this commitment, or who otherwise have limited access to it, vulnerable to the proselytizing of less savory groups. Its activities in non-Turkic and largely non-Islamic parts of the world might be likened to the work of the cultural agencies of the major globally-active western powers such as the US, the UK and France. They are unlikely to harm Turkey’s economic prospects and diplomatic image, and are indeed likely to benefit them.
* Senior Lecturer in the Defense Studies Department, King's College, London University
Excerpted from the author’s paper "The Fethullah Gülen Movement as a Transnational Phenomenon” presented at the international conference “Muslim World in Transition: Contributions of the Gülen Movement” University of London, House of Lords and London School of Economics on 25-27 October, 2007
