In the modern Islamic world, religiosity has for a long time language of opposition through this language. This language transforms faith from a claim and a proposal into a to the sum of reflexes It brings it down. What the West does, what it imposes, how it exploits, whom it humiliates is constantly repeated; but this repetition serves to superficialize thought, not to deepen the truth. Because being constantly “against” does not produce meaning on its own; it only acknowledges the centrality of the other.
The fundamental problem at this point is this: Anti-Westernism is another form of West-centeredness. A consciousness that constantly responds to the West cannot establish its own references; it cannot build its own ontology, epistemology and historical continuity. Such a piety becomes a political defense reflex rather than a religious stance. Faith is no longer shaped around the question “what do we believe?”, but rather “who are we against?”.
It is immoral to deny the reality of colonialism, but making victimization an identity, is an intellectual disaster. Societies that constantly produce a narrative of oppression stop taking responsibility after a while. Every failure is attributed to external causes: “We lagged behind because we were exploited.” “We could not build because we were blocked.” “We are corrupted because we are imposed.” At first glance, this discourse appears to be a demand for justice; but deep down the subject's suspension of self are available. The question that is no longer asked is this: What did we do, what did we not do, where did we go wrong?
But history is not only a record of destruction in these lands, founding mind also existed. Madrasahs produced not only fiqh but also mathematics and astronomy. Cities were not only places of shelter, but also places of law and aesthetics. The Tanzimat and Republican experiences, despite all their contradictions the will to transform itself of the past. Today, this accumulation is being erased in the noise of reactionary discourse. This is not simple forgetfulness; is a conscious historical blindness.
The most dangerous dimension of reactionary religiosity emerges in the political sphere. The populist languages of power and opposition are used to turn anti-Westernism into a legitimacy apparatus as a cover for domestic political failures. The discourse of “they don't want us”, “they want to divide us”, “they despise us” is a functional curtain that covers domestic political failures. Thus, politics ceases to be a field of producing solutions; it is reduced to emotional mobilization and fear management. This language does not raise public awareness; on the contrary, it keeps the public in a constant defensive position.
At the philosophical level, the issue is even deeper. Reactionary religiosity, is the inability to be the subject. A form of consciousness that cannot form its own word, that only responds... But what we call civilization is not responding; is to ask questions, make proposals and construct a vision of the world. Faith, if it is to have any meaning at all, must not only oppose what is wrong, it must establish what is right.
This is precisely where the consciousness of actionary construction begins. This consciousness does not put the West at the center; it puts itself at the center. It does not reject critical thinking in education as a “Western invention”; it remixes it with its own historical heritage. In the economy, instead of attributing failure to foreign conspiracies, it discusses production capacity and institutional wisdom. In foreign policy, instead of passive reactions, it produces long-term strategies and visions. This approach is neither Western admiration nor Western hostility; is the state of being a self-confident subject.
When we look at our social language, traces of reactionary religiosity can be seen everywhere: lynch culture on social media, sloganized memorization in academia, a style that constantly accuses but rarely offers solutions in politics. This language does not produce; it consumes. It does not deepen thought; it simplifies it. And most importantly, it diminishes society. more complaint than action to the world.
However, the spirit of actionary construction is based on responsibility rather than complaint, witnessing rather than victimization, constructing rather than reacting. This spirit does not deny the pain of the past, but makes it the raw material for the future. This is what civilizational consciousness is all about: not remembering the pain, generating meaning and direction from pain.
In the end, it is not a question of what our relationship with the West is like; is how we relate to ourselves. A consciousness that is always looking elsewhere cannot find its own way. Unless the whiny tone of reactionary religiosity is abandoned, neither intellectual depth nor political effectiveness nor genuine self-confidence will be possible. A society that embraces the consciousness of actionary construction does not defend its history; transcends it, transforms it and carries it into the future.
And only then, not just complaints from this land, an offer that makes sense for the world may rise.
At this point, it should be clearly recognized that the issue is not limited to the topic of “religiosity”. Reactionarism is today in Turkey and more broadly in the global South, a form of political reason has become. Religiosity is only one of the most visible faces of this reason. The same reflex reproduces itself in nationalism, secularism, and even in oppositional discourses. The common denominator is this: inability to be a subject. Everyone is against something, but very few are building something.
The language of contemporary politics is the most crystallized form of this reactionary mentality. The government reads every crisis in terms of foreign powers, the global system, the West, interest lobbies, cultural attacks, while the opposition often reproduces this language in reverse. Thus, politics ceases to be a field of solutions and programs; a scene of mutual accusation and the production of symbolic enemies. into a scene. In this scene, emotion circulates, not truth. Anger, fear and humiliation replace rational discussion.
This situation is not a coincidence. Reactionary politics is a form of unaccountable politics. Because it is a society that is always looking “outwards”, It cannot talk about internal power relations, class inequalities, institutional breakdowns and meritocracy. Criticism of the West ceases to be a critical analysis here; it functions as a smokescreen. As the fog thickens, responsibility evaporates.
The intellectual field is not outside this fog. What we often encounter in academic texts, columns and conference lecterns is not the production of thought, position statementis. The distinction between “us and them” replaces thinking. Concepts cease to be tools and become slogans. Concepts such as civilization, identity, values, local-national are not theoretical areas that need to be deepened, signs of political belonging used as a political tool. This is the colonization of intellectual space by politics.
But thought is not for producing belonging; are there to get distance. Thought requires the courage to be alienated even from oneself. Reactionary religiosity does the opposite: it constantly affirms itself, constantly justifies itself, constantly declares itself a victim. Such a mind is neither open to criticism nor to transformation. This is because transformation requires first acknowledging the error, whereas reactionary consciousness always looks for the error outside.
One of the most striking indicators of contemporary times is digital spaces. Social media has become the natural habitat of reactionary religiosity and politics. Short sentences, sharp judgments, shouted slogans... Algorithms reward reaction, not thought. Thus, intellectual depth constantly loses out to speed and anger. In this environment, actionary construction is not consciousness; reactionary lynch reflex strengthens. Everyone talks, no one builds.
This is precisely why the spirit of actionary construction is not a romantic ideal; is an existential imperative. If a society builds its education system, its legal system, its economic model and its foreign policy vision only “in spite of the West”, it is in fact still accepting the centrality of the West. The real rupture is not through hostility; independent thinking becomes possible. Independent thought is only possible with a strong sense of history and a critical mind.
Here the issue of history reappears. Reading history only as a narrative of victimization to a memory without action transforms it. Yet history, when read correctly, is a storehouse of possibilities. There are successes as well as mistakes; founding moves as well as collapses. An activist consciousness does not sanctify the past, but neither does it deny it. It analyzes it, sorts it out and carries it into the present. Reactionary consciousness, on the other hand, either romanticizes history or imprisons it in a narrative of trauma.
Turkey's main problem today is neither what the West is doing nor what the world is imposing on us. The real problem is, is what we offer ourselves. What kind of education do we envision? What kind of justice do we have? What kind of city, what kind of people, what kind of future do we want? Unless these questions are asked, criticism of the West will remain just noise.
The spirit of actionary construction starts precisely with these questions. Not with reaction, but with design. Not with defense, but with construction. Not with complaint, but with responsibility. This spirit neither denies the burden of the past nor turns it into a sacred chain. It considers the past as a raw material, and the future is a sphere of moral responsibility as a man.
In the end, it is necessary to say the following: Reactionary religiosity is not only a problem of thought; is a technique of power. It is a functional tool to keep society passive, to prevent accountability, to lower expectations. Actionary construction consciousness, on the other hand, disrupts this technique. Because the constructing subject calls to account; demands; compares; produces. This is why every power, consciously or unconsciously, loves reactionary.
But civilization is not about the comfort of power; with intellectual courage is established. And this courage comes not from responding to someone else, but from establishing one's own voice. Unless the whiny tone of reactionary religiosity is abandoned, no strong political, moral and intellectual proposal will emerge from these lands. On the contrary, the spirit of actionary construction, on the contrary, will take this geography out of the line of defense. a constitutive subject is the only possibility that can move it to its position.
So it is no longer about the West.
It's about us.
And the question to be asked is this:
Will we remain reactors or will we dare to be builders?