Yener Orkunoğlu wrote: Optimism, pessimism and the problem of identity
What is optimism? Where does it draw its strength? What does pessimism mean? What is the source of pessimism? What is the difference between pessimism and pessimism? How should the question of identity be understood ?
I will try to give short answers to questions that I deem important.
First and foremost, it's crucial to establish this: Real life encompasses everything: optimism, pessimism, and even pessimism. There's a beautiful quote from the German poet and philosopher Goethe: "Theory is gray, the tree of life is green ." These words should be understood as follows: Every theory is a dull and static expression of a specific segment of life. The flow of living life erodes dull theories. Therefore, considering living life, it's necessary to revisit old views and theories.
Those with dull and static views, for example, find it difficult to understand Devlet Bahçeli's shift in his views on the Kurdish issue. Consequently, they cannot escape being held captive by pessimistic thoughts.
In the preface of my book titled Marxism, Nationalism and the Democratic Nation (İletişim Publications, 3rd Edition May 2025), I wrote:
The strength of nationalism, the religion of the modern age, and the slow pace of ideological struggle against it should not discourage us. Those who embark on the struggle against nationalist ideology should be content with even the smallest successes and learn to be both determined and patient in this long-term struggle. There are reasons for both pessimism and optimism. An optimistic attitude that does not ignore negative developments but believes in the transformative power of enlightening ideas and actions is a more realistic approach .
Based on real life, there are reasons for both optimism and pessimism. Between these two opposing tendencies, it's important to prioritize one over the other and ground that prioritization.
I am generally an optimistic person, and I get my optimism from three sources:
First , historical experience has shown that all oppressive regimes eventually collapse. Oppressive governments have not been able to survive for long. For example, Hitler believed he would establish a state that would last a thousand years. But his rule lasted only 15 years.
Societies are in a constant state of change and transformation. In a sense, there is "progress" in history. However, this is not an automatic progress. Rather, it is an advancement in human knowledge, abilities, and the experiential knowledge gained from both positive and negative developments. These advancements are also a source of my optimism.
The second source of my optimism is sociological analysis. I base my optimism about developments in Turkey on these sociological analyses. Namely, the PKK's dissolution paved the way for the peace process. The realization of peace benefits Turkey and its people. This is because achieving peace paves the way for significant developments in economic, political, and legal spheres.
Regarding the third source of my optimism, I would like to draw attention to the triad of purpose, consciousness, and will, developed by German philosophers, particularly Hegel. This triad is extremely important and primarily a matter of political interest. The forces that will bring about change are political organizations that define purpose and can develop and disseminate purposeful consciousness. However, purpose and consciousness alone are not sufficient; they can only be embodied through the intervention of a strong political will.
This is where the real trouble comes in: strong political will. What I'm trying to say is this: Sociological analyses are important for uncovering potential political forces; however, potential political power doesn't necessarily mean actual political power. The fact that politics is an art requires the ability to transform potential social forces into active political power.
Some "political scientists" speaking on television propose policies based on the general public sentiment and awareness revealed by surveys. For example, suppose polls indicate that a large majority of society does not want the Kurdish issue resolved. A party pursuing quantity or votes will likely bow to public demands.
Another survey was published a few days ago. The survey question was about citizenship: Should one be a Turkish citizen or a resident of Turkey ?
79.6 percent of the society chose to be Turkish citizens, while 18.2 percent chose to be from Turkey.
A politician who makes policy decisions based on such a poll and a 'political scientist' who makes policy recommendations based on the results of this poll deserves to be called a mass tailer.
At this point I would like to say two things:
First, I think this question is the wrong one and demonstrates confusion on the part of the pollster. Because a person can be both a member of the Turkish nation as a national identity ; a citizen of the Republic of Turkey; and a citizen of the Turkish geography .
Conflating Turkish citizenship with being from Turkey is the product of a flawed and incomplete perspective. If society were to be informed of the difference between three identities— national identity, state identity, and geographical identity—then the responses might differ. There's a German saying: Educating society requires educating educators.
Secondly, the politician's duty is not to surrender to facts; their true duty is to change them. Politicians and "political scientists" who surrender to facts are, at heart, conservatives. Readers know that there are also little Poppers in Türkiye, admirers of Karl Popper, the father of liberal conservatism and a favorite of Western imperialism. The elite's fear of change is what lies behind these little Poppers' calling the German philosopher Hegel "idiot."
The truth behind surrendering to facts is this: In the 20th century, science was fundamentally overrated and philosophy was underestimated. Because science limits itself to existing facts, whereas philosophy argues for what ought to be, starting from what is. The German philosopher Hegel said, "Everything that exists requires transcendence."
I mention this because, to become a true political force, it's crucial to identify, based on sociological analysis, the social forces within society that favor peace, prosperity, and democracy. Then, we need to develop a political strategy that will transform these social forces into political leverage.
In this sense, a real politician is not one who bows to the backward consciousness of society, but one who tries to raise the consciousness and action of society.
From this perspective, the CHP administration's approach that the mothers of martyrs should be heard in the Commission is not a proposal that is the product of a true sociological and political approach, but rather a proposal stemming from a moral approach.
To avoid any misunderstanding, I need to give an example. Of course, politics requires an ethical approach, but this ethical approach must be a rational one that moves society forward. A moral understanding that appeals to emotions often inhibits progress because it appeals to the irrational.
My conclusion from what I've said so far is this: Historical experience and sociological analysis make me optimistic. For example, the demands for peace and democracy benefit the majority of Turks and Kurds. This is the sociological basis for the political alliance between the CHP and the Democratic Movement Party (DEM).
On the other hand, Devlet Bahçeli, out of concern for securing the future of the Turkish state, favors a Kurdish-Turkish alliance and granting certain rights to Kurds. This requires democracy and just legal systems. This fact is a significant factor compelling the MHP to align politically with the CHP and DEM parties.
Because I conduct sociological analyses of my own volition, I am optimistic from a sociological perspective. However, I cannot claim to be optimistic about the political arena. This is for two reasons:
First, there is no one-to-one relationship between the sociological field and political power, because the ontology of the two fields is based on different criteria.
Secondly, in the political arena, alongside various political forces, there's also a government whose sole purpose is to protect itself. Furthermore, the AKP-Erdoğan government is an anti-democratic power that fears democracy. Therefore, I can't maintain my sociological optimism in the political arena. In this sense, I'm a cautious political pessimist, but not a pessimist.
In the Turkish language, the words "pessimism" and "pessimism" are often used synonymously, but there are distinct differences. The difference between pessimism and pessimism can be explained by the origins and orientation of these two emotions. While both express a negative outlook, there are subtle distinctions that distinguish them.
Pessimism, in essence, concerns expectations for the future. These expectations are about the country, life in general, or one's own life. A pessimist feels that their expectations will not come true.
Pessimism, however, more often describes a person's current emotional state and general outlook on the world. Pessimism is a persistent state of deep sadness, hopelessness, or demoralization. A pessimist distrusts people and never expects anything good to happen. For them, all of life is condemned to meaninglessness.
In short, pessimism is a negative prediction about the future, while pessimism is a deep state of insecurity encompassing the current situation and life in general .
Finally, I would like to end my article with an anecdote about Voltaire, one of the important 18th-century French enlightenment philosophers.
He waged a long struggle against Christianity and the Roman Church. He hoped for a revolution in France, but in the last few years of his life, he lost hope and became pessimistic. However, 100 years after his death, the French Revolution he had anticipated finally occurred.
We have more reasons to be optimistic than to be pessimistic. Furthermore, optimism encourages action, whereas pessimism condemns inaction. All inaction leads to decay.
Medyascope
