Abstract
In public discourse, the polarizations that accompany the success of authoritarian populisms in recent years are often portrayed as the result of “culture wars” rooted in incompatible values. This article approaches the relation between values and politics differently. It examines the role that state and capitalist modes of valuation play for the alliance-formation underpinning hegemonic projects. The argument is illustrated with the case of Turkey where processes of devaluation and dispossession were manifold in the past years. Polarization here expresses not so much unitary political identities of opposed values than a specific, polarizing dynamic of alliance-formation in authoritarian populism. The orchestration of state and capitalist modes of valuation on the one hand allows for the formation of alliances with both dominant and subordinate social groups and on the other hand also entails contradictions that might constitute a source of fragility for the continuity of the project.
Highlights
State modes of valuation and hierarchies of belonging and entitlementWhile hegemonic projects will always be dependent upon and work through economic/capitalist forms of valuation, they cannot be reduced to their role in these (e.g., Hall 1988, Jessop 1991)
In public discourse, the polarizations that accompany the success of authoritarian populisms in recent years are often portrayed as the result of “culture wars” rooted in incompatible values
The orchestration of state and capitalist modes of valuation on the one hand allows for the formation of alliances with both dominant and subordinate social groups and on the other hand entails contradictions that might constitute a source of fragility for the continuity of the project
Summary
While hegemonic projects will always be dependent upon and work through economic/capitalist forms of valuation, they cannot be reduced to their role in these (e.g., Hall 1988, Jessop 1991). The Kemalist state, despite its secularism, had long promoted a version of national identity that was built on ethnic Turkishness and (Sunni) Islam, with minorities and other groups that did not conform to this synthesis being denied full belonging and entitlement in the state (Tambar 2016; Ince 2012). Much of this hinged on particular aspirations of modernity (Bozdoğan and Kasaba 1997), including both assimilationist and exclusionary logics of modern nation-building. This strategy was occasioned by a moment of crisis for the regime, which reacted to challenges to its state remaking project and the breaking of ties with key allies with the attempt to reshape alliances as the exigencies of the moment required
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
