Jineolojî’s Methodological Development and Approach to the Concept of Equality

Ezgi Sıla Demir

I began reading Jineolojî’s philosophy approximately seven years ago, during which time I have also observed its practice and followed its discussions. The fact that my field is sociology has enabled me to draw certain evaluations between the two disciplines. I would like to point out that this article is an observational analysis that enables a continuation of these evaluations and observations within Jineolojî discussions.

The conceptualization of Jineolojî presents many categories, including social sciences, feminism, and gender struggle, all from a different perspective. Many deadlocks of feminist ideology have been discussed in various ways across different fields. The positivist scientific perspective essentially limits feminism within this viewpoint, firmly directing it with the tools of modernity, and trying to integrate it into the capitalist system, but actually attempting to create an “acceptable” feminism. Jineolojî, however, discusses precisely these points and contributes to overcoming the theoretical-practical framework that remains within the boundaries of the male-dominated system, through both ideological and scientific frameworks, with efforts of meaning and interpretation, as feminism drifts in this direction. It offers an alternative method, and I examine this method in two separate stages: 1st stage – Jineolojî as science/ideology; 2nd stage – Jineolojî as practice/method. These stages should not be understood as categorization, and it is also a fact that these two stages have undoubtedly been discussed and concretized to this day. All discussions conducted in this way remind us again of the question: what should be the duty of science? In this sense, I think Yvonne Heine best defines Jineolojî’s scientific perspective as “making knowledge and experience collective on an ethical line, in order to be able to make joint and conscious decisions for common life.”

Due to its broad scope, the relationship between Jineolojî and science is a subject for lengthy articles, so I would like to note that in this piece I will be limited to briefly touching upon the method and concept of equality. As we delve into Jineolojî, we see that it takes certain important discussions of sociology out of academic boundaries, uses them to define the areas it leaves empty, and transforms them into a scientific field, but the science referred to here is not science in the modern sense. Life is a field that constantly changes, transforms, and produces knowledge, and in this process there is much knowledge about women in the past and present. This knowledge is quite important in terms of the effort to transform the distorted, manipulated female identity to its essence/core, and Jineolojî has a strong and important role in accessing the truth of this knowledge. It undertakes an effective mission in accessing the essence of the distorted woman, not with the given history and narratives, but by kneading together different historicities and mythologies, religions, philosophies, and sciences, all without separating from nature. It does not accept masculinized science and the philosophy that creates the subject-object distinction, because doing the sociology of women or life considers every living being as a subjective value by taking into account the universe, nature, relational vitality in society, reason, and interpretation.

One of the most important things sociology teaches us is that every structure of social life is constructed: gender roles; norms; traditions; customs; and many other social factors. However, the dangerous part at this point is the constructed, reflected, female identity reality. This identity is manipulated, propagandizing capitalism and cultural imperialism, and making it perceived as equality to possess every commodity it reaches. However, this situation does not go beyond feeding a consumption culture, and does not even come close to the understanding of equality.

The system makes the perception of equality and freedom ambiguous, and this makes women’s identity struggles extreme and therefore perceived as dangerous, while actually this situation shows us more clearly how liberalism obscures subject and identity in daily life. Jineolojî, however, reminds us of the essence of understanding equality and freedom, and offers us a method to reflect and transform this into every area of life, that is, society. In Jineolojî, female identity is defined and handled sociologically, historically, dialectically, and ontologically, by attributing it to the social subject beyond biological definition. Positivist science, on the other hand, has reduced the subject-object distinction to handling female identity on the basis of opposition (dualistically), like defining women as non-male, or children as non-adult. The emergence of Jineolojî and its effort to make sense of life is not based on opposition to modern science. On the contrary, it forms a perspective by analyzing discussions in the historical process, and by drawing from many different sources.

Equality is not just the struggle to be equal with the “masculine/power.” If we look at it this way (unknowingly), we perpetuate hierarchy and domination, so Jineolojî is quite important in this respect. At this very point, Jineolojî questions the line feminism has fallen into, the limitation in the understanding of equality and freedom. The masculine system processes and makes the understanding of equality to be perceived as equal status with men, while remaining formal causes the understanding of equality to be emptied of its content. It dictates that the primary responsibility for the comprehension of equality not to remain at this limit in society should be with women. The first condition of this is that women be completely equal and free. Like the right to engage in fully democratic politics, full right to speak and will in all relationships related to gender.

Jineolojî tells us that we must dissolve and break apart the socially constructed woman, the masculinity that has gained immunity, and the network of relationships that feeds all inequalities, slaveries, despotisms, fascism, and militarism. Modern masculine science must be transformed as woman-subject, and it should not be forgotten that the social and vital subject is woman.

As I conclude my words, I would like to respectfully remember the academician Nagihan Akarsel, member of the Jineolojî Research Center and editor of Jineolojî magazine, and end with her words: “Jineolojî views the scientific perspective as part of the women’s liberation struggle, based on the fact that women can realize this potential by creating scientific, philosophical, artistic, actional, and organizational structures. Jineolojî essentially takes analyzing and solving the problems that have become deadlocks in social life and in women’s identity and women-men, human-nature relationships. It reminds social science, which has the responsibility to develop solutions to social problems, of the responsibility to handle women within their relationality with life and nature, without fragmenting women’s historical-social existence, without objectifying women.”

Source: https://jindergi.com/yazi/jineolojinin-yontem-gelisimi-ve-esitlik-kavramina-bakisi/