Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T09:44:12.302Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Feeling Tells Better Than Language”: Emotional Expression and Gender Hierarchy in the Sermons of Fethullah Gülen Hocaefendİ

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2015

Esra G. Özyürek
Esra G. Özyürek*
Affiliation:
The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Department of Anthropology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Over the past two years, the televised sermons of Fethullah Hocaefendi have thrust him into the public limelight, lending his name celebrity status as a prominent religious-cum-political figure. His long standing influence as the leader of one of the most powerful Islamic communities in contemporary Turkey, Nur Cemaati, is now common public knowledge. Currently, this group owns one of the largest mass circulating newspapers (Zaman), a TV channel (Samanyolu) and a vast network of hundreds of educational institutions extending all the way from Turkey to Central Asia. The teachings of Fethullah Gülen Hoca are widely disseminated through books as well as cassette recordings of his sermons, readily available for sale on counters of commercial bookstores. For the “secularized” public however, Fethullah Hoca's renown extends beyond his religious-cum-political prominence. He is famous for the fact that he weeps ecstatically during his sermons, contrary to what is expected of a man in Turkey today.

Type
Articles
Information
New Perspectives on Turkey , Volume 16 , Spring 1997 , pp. 41 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © New Perspectives on Turkey 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abu-Lughod, Lila. 1986. Veiled Sentiments: Honor and Poetry in a Bedouin Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Abbott, Naiba. 1942. Aishah, the Beloved of Mohammed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Besnier, Niko. 1990. “Language and affect,” Annual Review of Anthropology. 19, pp. 419-51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope. 1980. “How and why are women polite? Some evidence from a Mayan community,” in McConnell-Ginet, Sally, Borker, Ruth and Furman, Nelly. eds.), Women and Language in Literature and Society. New York: Praeger, pp. 111–139.Google Scholar
Cameron, Deborah. 1995. “Rethinking language and gender studies: Some issues for the 1990's,” in Mills, Sara, ed.) Language and Gender: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. London: Longman, pp. 31–44.Google Scholar
Delaney, Carol. 1984. Seed and Soil: Symbols of Procreation-Creation of a World. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Feld, Steven. 1990. Sound and Sentiment: Birds, Weeping, Poetics, and Song in Kaluli Expression. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Fishman, Pamlea. 1978. “Interaction: the work women do,” Social Problems, 25, pp. 397–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gal, Susan. 1994 [1991]. “Between speech and silence,” in Roman, C.. ed.), The Women and Language Debates. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, pp. 407–431.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philedalphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Susan. 1975. “Women and words in a Spanish village,” in Reiter, Rayna R., ed, Toward an Anthropology of Women. New York: Monthly Review.Google Scholar
Hill, Jane. 1995. “The voices of Don Gabriel: Responsibility and self in a modern Mexicano narrative,” in Tedlock, Dennis and Mannheim, Burce., eds., The Dialogic Emergence of Culture. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 97–147.Google Scholar
Rramarae, Cheris. 1981. Women and Men Speaking: Frameworks for Analysis. Rowley: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Lutz, Catherine. 1988. Unnatural Emotions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Barr, William M. & Atkins, Bowman K.. 1980. “Women's language” or “powerless language,” in McConnel-Ginet, Sally, Borker, Ruth and Furman, Nelly, eds, Women and Language in Literature and Society. New York: Praeger Publishers, pp. 93–110.Google Scholar
Sabbah, Fatma A. 1984. Women in the Muslim Unconscious. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Sherzer, Joel. 1987. “A diversity of voices: Men's and women's speech in ethnographic perspective,” in Philips, Susan U., Steele, Susan and Taz, Christine, eds, Language, Gender, and Sex in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1979. “Language structure and linguistic ideology,” in Cleyne, Paul R., Hanks, William F. and Hofbauer, Carol L.. eds.), The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 193–247.Google Scholar
Spender, Dale. 1980. Man Made Language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Stokes, Martin. 1992. The Arabesk Debate: Music and Musicians in Modern Turkey. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar