Kızılkaya / Fıkıh Usulünde Sahabe Fetvasının Kaynaklık Değeri Cilt / Volume: • Sayı /Issue: • 2012

28
Human and Society
function (which defines it) of ‘constituting’ concrete individuals as subjects. For Althusser, 
individuals are always already a subject and they constantly acknowledge the rule of 
recognition. He explains this process of recognition and interpellation in the example of 
Christian religious ideology (p. 109). Then, he inferred the rule from this example: 
The duplicate mirror-structure of ideology ensures simultaneously: 
1. The interpellation of ‘individuals’ as subjects; 
2. Their subjection to the Subject; 
3. The mutual recognition of subjects and the Subject, the subjects’ recognition of each 
other, and finally the subject’s recognition of himself; 
4. The absolute guarantee that everything really is so, and that on condition that the 
subjects recognize what they are and behave accordingly, everything will be all right; 
Amen ‘So be it’ (Althusser, 2010, p. 207). 
In the case of Friday sermons, the sermon giver (imam/khātib) interpellates attendants 
as subjects by saying “honorable Muslim” and appropriating them as Muslims. In doing 
this, he has subjected them in front of the Absolute Subject, and then the mutual rec-
ognition of the Subject and subjects takes place. In the course of all these practices, the 
khātib is preaching in the name of God and the state, because he is a state-approved 
religious official. Hence, it is asserted that Friday sermons can be handled as ideological 
state apparatuses, because the state speaks to the public through sermons. Ideological 
apparatuses work for the subjectification of individuals and also appropriate subjects 
into their due position through their function of over-determination (Sancar, 2008, p. 
53). They help to reproduce the existing relation of production and power. There are 
two different types of ideological apparatuses: Repressive State Apparatuses (such as 
the army, police, courts et cetera) and Ideological State Apparatuses (such as the media, 
school, Church et cetera) (Althusser, 2010, p. 17). Although repressive apparatuses con-
stitute a concrete body, ideological ones are retained in diverse areas and these ideo-
logical apparatuses function to reshapes our preferences, desires and thereby appropri-
ate us into the web of power relations (Althusser, p. 56, 156). They inject the virtues of a 
bourgeois state, such as nationalism, economism, liberalism and humanism (p. 59). The 
world is integrated in to Capital by means of ideological apparatuses (Negri, 1996, p. 57). 
After questioning the appropriateness of Althusserian notions of ideology for Friday 
sermons, it is examined in which perspective Friday sermon represent the problem of 
environment in terms of environmentalist movements. Therefore, different basic per-
spective environmentalism is given. 
Environmentalism as a political and ideational movement arose after the Second World 
War (Ceritli, 1998, p. 256). However, there is no single standpoint within the environ-
mental movement. The basic types are presented here: 
.
.

---

29
Demir / Looking to Environment from the Perspective of Pulpit Presentation of the Issue of Environment in 
Friday Sermons
The eco-centric approach, claims that, nature has a certain number of rights regard-
less of human consumption, and that humans have no priority or special position over 
other parts of nature (Keleş, Hamamcı, & Çoban, 2006, p. 294). Eco-socialism, eco-an-
archism (Boockhin, 2010), eco-feminism (Salleh, 1997) are all examples of such radical 
movements that can be evaluated within the scope of an eco-centric approach. 
The second type is the anthropocentric approach, which claims that nature has only 
meaning as soon as it services to the benefit of human. Nature is regarded here as a 
“source” for human survival. According to this approach, for this and future genera-
tions’ survival, humanity must exploit natural resources in a reasonable manner. This 
movement is termed as conservatist  and  preservatist  environmentalism which gives 
importance to preserving and renewing natural resources (Vincet, 2006, p. 359). Many 
European countries designate their policies according to this understanding (Keleş et 
al., 2006, p. 351). 
The third type is sustainable development which seeks to find environmentally non-
hazardous technologies and a way in which nature and human purposes can coexist 
without loss or damage. 
If the understanding of environmentalism presented in sermons is examined, it will be 
seen that the concept of nature is a pre-determined Newtonian machine, which works 
as an ordered mechanism (İstanbul Müftülüğü, 2005a). This machine is given by God 
to humans, who are at the top of the hierarchy of living beings, and which is at the dis-
posal (İstanbul Müftülüğü, 2002a, 2003a). Sermons present the human as a being over 
other parts of nature who is the master of the universe and that everything attains its 
true value and meaning to the extent of its servitude to humanity (İstanbul Müftülüğü, 
2002a, 2002b, 2004a, 2004b, 2005a). Sermons’ approach to nature is instrumental, 
where nature is mentioned as a resource, as a medium to live, as a recreational beauty 
or as an economic value (İstanbul Müftülüğü, 2004a, 2006). It also reduces global 
ecological crises to national problems (İstanbul Müftülüğü, 2006). Sermons also have 
soulless language, which always talks about on duties and responsibilities (İstanbul 
Müftülüğü, 2005b). As it can be seen the vision of Diyanet on the environmentalism is 
limited to a restorative-reformist, or source-conservatist, anthropo- centric approach. 
As seen, the vision of the Diyanet on environmentalism is limited to a restorative-re-
formist, or resource-conservatist, anthropocentric approach. 
Interestingly however, the discourse used in sermons changed dramatically after 2007. 
It passed from a narrow human-centrism supported since the beginning of the Turkish 
Republic to being nature-centrism. From that time on, nature has been represented as 
a being with its own rights, and not only as a slave of human utility. With this change 
of discourse, the possibility for the foundation an eco-theological ethics was launched. 
The conception of human as the master of nature has been rejected and considered as 

---