Construction, Struggle, Intervention: Transformation Dynamics of Alevi Social Space

A considerable amount of literature has postulated that the social is produced intertwined with space-place, memory and identity and is also determinant in the construction of all of these (Halbwachs. 2017; Nora, 1989; Connerton, 2014; Lefebvre, 2014; Massey, 1994). Alevi social spaces are also critical elements in the formation and expression of Alevi identity both in the rural settings and in the urbanization process. If we conceptualize the philosophical, everyday and social space with the trilogy of Lefebvre, Alevi spatial understanding and practice in rural settings presents an appearance where the perceived, designed and lived spaces are dialectically intertwined (Salman, 2019). Within this organisation, places of belief and worship are places created by the transformation of everyday space. We can say that, from a singular visit to a wide network of hearths, in the Alevi rural order, the space is organised in the form of various heterotopias (Foucault, 2005). This practice of transformation came to the rescue in the first phase of migration to the city. One of the indicators of this transformation is that Cem places, which are not institutionalised as an independent place of worship due to compelling conditions in the rural setting, manifest themselves both as places of worship and where basic social-cultural needs are met in the urban area. While rising as a symbol of a space-oriented struggle in the reconstruction of the Alevi identity, Cemevis have also turned into one of the tools of political-bureaucratic powers and other repressive actors to intervene in belief and culture. During this process, Alevis faced new problems that emerged with urbanisation, such as the dissolution of the ocak system, the change of visiting places and culture, and the intellectual-physical construction of places of belief and worship. We can express these problems, all of which have a socio-spatial feature, as transformations based on the internal dynamics of the community. On the other hand, as a reflection of the practice of the past in various forms and levels, the intervention of Alevi beliefs and social spaces, sometimes official power centers and extensions, sometimes by civil actors, continues today. Defining Alevi places of worship, not recognising Alevi sacred places, and verbal and physical harassment against Alevi settlements are some aspects of this intervention. We can express these as external dynamics that force transformation. Today, Alevis are going through the process of keeping their beliefs and culture alive and rebuilding their Alevi identity under current conditions, in the face of this two-way transformation pressure.