HARS VE MEDENiYET KAVRAMLARI ARASINDA MEDENiYETLER ÇATIŞMASI

When S. P. Hungtington wrote the article called "Clash of Civilisation" in 1992, the subject discussed was which criteria are accepted as the basic to form the new balances after the cold war. As Huntington wrote these problems in the political and the west-centre ideology frame he continued a very important discussion of the new global system. Indeed, the opinion of "clash of civilisation" is dominant in the present global system while stated by Hungtington , indeed the criticism of this idea is debated in modernism and post-modernism. On the other hand, Ziya Gokalp was an important name between the period covered from the end of the 19'h century and the beginning of the 2d h century . This period, was when the Ottoman Empire was falling and the Turkish Republic was founded. Gokalp started his works in II. Me$rutiyet, but he completed his works in the years of the mono-system of Kemalism. Although he was a positivist, idealism together with solidarist-corporatist opinion revealed itself in Gokalp's theory and also he referred to Durkheim's theory to construct his relative democratic theory. His syntactic approach when considering standard judgement during the studies of the social realisations and objective conditions during his examination of universal theories was not different to that of the EI will argue whether European thinkers of the 19'h century who tried to find the syntax idealism and the positivism. I want to compare Hungtington's definition of civilisation and the declinations of universal and international civilisation with the ones Gokalp defines in his books "Tiirkle$mek, jslamla$mak, MuaSlrla$mak, 1917; Tiir/cfiiliigiin Esaslarz, 1913". I will argue whether there is a new wiry to consider the dual values in Gokalp where his separated civilisation (that means are universal values) and "hars" (that means national values) while comparing these Jactors which are used together by Hungtington in the concept of civilisation.