Over the past three decades, many once taken for granted assumptions about processes of secularism have been questioned and revised. One unifying feature of these reassessments is recognition of the plurality of social–historical contexts of secularism[s], their contrasting political arrangements, and thus of individuals’ radically different regional experiences of them. Given, then, both this variety of ‘secular’ political systems and the incomparability of subjects’ perceptions about/of them, the question becomes whether we should grant the same word – secularism – to all of them? In this paper, I propose that we should not, and suggest the term anthropocracy to describe a particular modern project of political order. To illustrate the argument, I present an example of what I interpret to be an exemplary anthropocratic political system, that of the Turkish Republic. I conclude by illustrating certain advantages that accrue to our understanding of contemporary politics in Turkey and elsewhere by diagnosing its governing policies as anthropocratic.

中文翻译：

---

人类共和？土耳其的神权政治、世俗主义和凯末尔主义

在过去的三十年里，许多曾经被视为理所当然的关于世俗主义进程的假设受到了质疑和修正。这些重新评估的一个统一特征是承认世俗主义的社会历史背景的多元性、它们对比鲜明的政治安排，以及个人对它们的完全不同的区域体验。考虑到这种“世俗”政治制度的多样性以及主体对它们的看法的不可比性，问题就变成了我们是否应该对所有这些制度赋予同一个词——世俗主义？在本文中，我建议我们不应该，并建议使用人类统治一词来描述一个特定的现代政治秩序项目。为了说明这个论点，我举了一个例子，说明我认为是模范的人类政治制度，土耳其共和国。最后，我通过将土耳其和其他地方的治理政策诊断为人为统治来说明我们对土耳其和其他地方的当代政治的理解所产生的某些优势。