Türkiye’de aleviliğin kurumsallaşma süreci (problemler ve çözüm önerileri)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aleviliğin kurumsallaşma süreci, 1900’lü yılların ilk çeyreğinden başlamış ve halen devam eden bir süreçtir. 1900’lü yılların başlarında Aleviler hakkında ilk akademik araştırmalar yapılmaya başlanmış ve Aleviler Cumhuriyetin kuruluşu sürecinde aktif rol alarak kamusal görünürlük kazanmışlardır. 1950’li yıllardan itibaren şehir merkezlerine ve Avrupa ülkelerine göç etmeye başlayan Aleviler, yeni yerleşim alanlarında çeşitli sosyolojik süreçleri tecrübe etmişler ve yapısal dönüşüm geçirmişlerdir. Öteden beri dini bir hareket olarak bilinen Alevilik, şehir ortamındaki yapısal dönüşümle birlikte sosyal, siyasi, dini ve kültürel boyutları olan, çok boyutlu bir kimlik hareketine dönüşmüştür. 1980’li yıllar Türkiye’de kimlik hareketlerinin yoğun yaşandığı bir dönem olmuştur. Bu dönemde Aleviler de Alevi kimliğini sahiplenmişler ve Alevileri temsil etmek amacıyla çok sayıda kurum inşa etmişlerdir. Günümüzde Alevilerin vakıf, dernek ve federasyon gibi çok sayıda sivil toplum kuruluşları, dergah ve cemevleri gibi dini kurumları vardır. Bu kurumlardan bir çoğu Alevileri temsil ettiklerini iddia etmektedirler ve Aleviler adına devletten talepte bulunmaktadırlar. Alevilerin günümüzdeki talepleri arasında en önemlileri, Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığının statüsü, Zorunlu din derslerinin statüsü, cemevlerinin ibadet hane olarak kabul edilmesi ve Alevi kimliğinin devlet tarafından tanınması gibi taleplerdir. Hem Alevi kurumlarının kendi aralarındaki farklılıklar hem de devletin yetkili kurumlarının yaklaşımı Alevilerin tamamını memnun edecek düzenlemeler yapılmasını zorlaştırmaktadır. \n\n \nABSTRACT\nThe institutionalization process of Alevism has been going on from the first quarter of 1900’s. The first academic researches about Alevism were published in early 1900’s and Alevis had an active part in the establishment process of Turkish Republic and thanks to this they gained public acceptance. Alevis had begun to migrate from rural areas to the city centers and some European countries in 1950’s and they faced some different sociological process that can be described as structural transformation. Alevism was known as a religious movement for centuries however in the city centers it was transformed into an identity movement which include religious, social, cultural and political dimensions. The identity movements were quite popular in Turkey in 1980’s. Alevis began to explore Alevi identity and they established a lot of institutions in order to represent Alevism. At the present day Alevis have a lot of institutions such as associations, foundations, federations and Cem houses (cemevi). Some of the institutions of Alevis have been claiming that they represent the Alevis and they have some demands from the state. The status of Religious Affairs Department, status of religious lessons in schools, the recognition of Cem houses as place of worship by the state and the recognition of Alevi identity by the state are some of the most important demands of Alevis. The institutions which claim to represent Alevis have different approaches to describe Alevism and they have differences in their demands. Both of the differences among the Alevi institutions and the approach of the state are making the institutionalization of Alevism difficult.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".