Türklerarası İletişim ve Etkileşimde Etnik Temelli Söylem mi Coğrafya Temelli Söylem mi?

The formation of social groups and associations among human beings is predicated on the establishment of communication channels between individuals. The question of whether such interaction is healthy, effective and sustainable is contingent upon the language used in communication, the underlying value system, and, consequently, the prevailing mindset. It is an established fact that prior to the establishment of colonial systems of dominance over the Turkic world, the Turks developed their own distinctive modes of communication and interaction, thereby constructing relatively loose yet resilient cultural bonds across vast geographies. Notwithstanding the prevailing colonial regime, scholars such as Ismail Gaspıralı endeavoured to uphold and fortify these connections. In contrast, colonial powers have mobilised all available instruments and resources to dismantle and sever such connections, a reality that is now manifest in the current practices of the Chinese Communist Party in East Turkestan.

Following the establishment of colonial regimes, various forms of centrism became predominant in different regions of the Turkic world: Eurocentrism is evident in the West, Russocentrism prevails in the northern and central regions, Sinocentrism characterises the East, and Persian–Arab centrism is prominent in the southern regions, with varying degrees of intensity. Among the dominant colonial powers, Russia and China imposed their rule through what they termed a Marxist conception of nationality, constructing artificial ethno-barriers based on ethnicity and, partly, blood ties, and creating artificially defined "peoples" or "nations" whose ethnic boundaries were drawn by Russian authorities. It is evident that a considerable number of "scientific" studies have been produced by Russian scholars and politicians with the objective of consolidating such ethnic classifications and divisions. In this context, Russian-centred Turkology and ethnology played a crucial role in the fragmentation and weakening of the Turkic world along ethnic and cultural lines.

Following 1950, the Chinese Communist Party adopted this Russian-developed approach to Turkology and ethnology, subsequently employing it as a means of intervening in, fragmenting and weakening the socio-cultural structures of "others" in order to govern them. This approach was termed the Chinese-style Marxist conception of nationality. This process, which has persisted for at least a century, has precipitated profound ruptures in general Turkic intellectual thought and literature. These ruptures have become evident in the failure to produce ideas that are aligned with the spirit of Gaspıralı, despite the favourable post-Cold War environment and the vast opportunities provided by contemporary communication technologies in the age of globalisation. It has been observed that even those who self-identify as Turkists have been engaging with other Turkic communities through concepts and discourses produced by Russian and Chinese mindsets, despite their criticism of these very same mindsets. This engagement frequently adopts an orientalist mode of interaction. Despite the rhetorical defence of Turkic unity, the absence of corresponding concepts, content, and alternative models has resulted in outcomes shaped by the underlying mindset of the borrowed terminology. Consequently, inter-Turkic interaction has been unsuccessful in achieving the desired levels of cohesion and fluidity.

The argument that the concept of the "Turkic world" has been hollowed out under the influence of orientalist perspectives is taken as its point of departure. The paper proposes an alternative conceptualisation of the "world of Turks" and, within this framework, conducts a sociological examination of methods to enhance inter-Turkic communication and render interaction sustainable, cohesive, and fluid. The argument is posited that this objective can be realised not through the utilisation of ethnically grounded conceptual discourses, but rather through the employment of self-confident, geography-based conceptual frameworks. Discourses pertaining to geography are not only compatible with the traditional intellectual heritage developed over millennia, but are also consonant with contemporary sociological realities. Should discourses that are grounded in local geography and developed as alternatives to ethnically based narratives, which have become entrenched over the past century through external influences and interventions, be systematically elaborated using scientific methods, it is certain that they will make positive contributions to inter-Turkic communication and interaction within the possibilities afforded by modern communication technologies.