|
The Study “Being a Minority in Turkey” and “thinking about oneself”.
The results of the study titled “Being a Minority in Turkey”, based on a questionnaire prepared by the Nor Zartonk group and evaluated by the Social Research Centre, has been published in the newspaper Agos in recent weeks.
Focusing particularly on Armenians living in Turkey who especially dwell in and around Istanbul with a population of between 60 and 80 thousand, the research bore a significant claim. First of all, with this research at hand, which aims at representing the Armenian population in the best possible way, a minority group would be able to “reflect upon themselves”. Such a study, at least when we consider how it was reflected in public, was a first in its field. Its being the initial case in point certainly led to the occurrence of some problems and difficulties.
In the first place, it was not possible to carry out the study with “an arbitrary method” of going around the streets and visiting the residences one by one. In a metropolitan city like Istanbul, with a population of 15 million people, the number of houses to be visited would be extremely high, when we consider the fact that the studied group consisted of 70 thousand people spreading over many districts, although the group was denser in certain areas. With a rough calculation, more than 20 thousand people had to be interviewed in order to reach 100 people that constitute a case in point. In other words, more than 200 houses had to be visited in order to find 1 house where Armenians resided. Instead of this “arbitrary” method, the cost of which is extremely hard to cover, another method was selected: just as a snowball grows bigger when rolling in snow, each residence that was visited was used as guidance to visit other residences with Armenians.
However, “the snowball method”, which ignores the principle of “chance of equality”, which is a basic feature of the science of statistics that constitutes a base for legitimacy in quantitative methods, was proved to be relatively weak. This weakness of the method has made itself clear in the Nor Zartonk questionnaire. For instance, in relation with the high number of young people who conducted the questionnaire, those who were questioned were dominantly young people, when the total of 459 participants is concerned. In this case, we might evaluate the study as a resource that provides information for the group investigated and the differences among the group members, rather than constituting a base for statistical legitimacy.
Despite the deficiency of the study mentioned above, the study, “Being a Minority in Turkey” may be shown as a perfect example for the efforts of a certain social- cultural group to reflect upon themselves. And with this feature, the study bears clues showing that the greater community in which Armenians live also has to think upon themselves as a whole.
The assessment of the study by the Nor Zartonk group, as well as the articles by Aris Nalcý, Markar Esayan and Rober Koptaþ that were published in Agos, included the data and the results of the study and further comments. In this article, I would like to summarize the study in a more general framework with the help of other research made on the subject, instead of focusing on the above mentioned evaluations and comments.
“Being an Armenian in Turkey”
The most important point is that the study reveals two of the most important references of Armenians: “Living in Turkey” and “Being an Armenian in Turkey”… Armenians have to face the difficulty of living in a country that does not show the required respect to their culture and memory, although the same Armenians live within the conditions of this culture and memory in the meantime. Although they have the status of being “equal citizens” with Turks, they cannot use the same rights that are granted by this citizenship. However, despite all the isolating practices in institutional (such as not being able to be an army officer), and cultural (such as insulting remarks made by official and political authorities) areas, Armenians are still living on their own land in direct interaction with others they share the land with. In brief, they inhale the same atmosphere in terms of social, political, economic and cultural conditions as that of ordinary citizens who might be identified as “Turks”.
They also read mainstream newspapers such as Hürriyet, Milliyet and Sabah; they also consume the products of the popular culture in the country; and just like the other educated members of the society, the educated members of the Armenian community also read the newspaper Radikal. They, just like all the other citizens, are afraid of the sources of danger imposed/provoked by the authorities. The rate of the Armenians who support Republic Demonstrations together with the masses of people who pour onto the streets against the “possible danger” claimed by the citizens, and the rate of Armenians who support the decisions taken by the Constitutional Court against the threat of AKP’s taking over Çankaya are on the rise. Although they are a bit affected by the warnings of “Islamic threat”, which are directly related to the secular nationalist language and the recent operations of the past few years, that does not mean that they support “the memo on the internet”. That is, although most Armenians are sensitive about the so-called threats against the republic “just like everyone”, they favor democracy “just like everyone”, as well.
The study does not only show the similarities between the Armenian community and the “ordinary citizens” of the country, but it also provides the reader with basic differences. That is because, the fears of Armenian people are not solely fed by the operations and the warnings aroused by nationalistic tendencies. Above all, they have the experience of the events of 1915, when their religions and ethnic origins were considered a reason for forced emigration / execution. That experience, which has led to difference and “otherness”, is not only a painful memory left in the past. That is simply because the chain of bad memories that were engraved onto the memories of almost every Armenian generation is now being continued with another experience of being the “other” in society: The murder of Hrant Dink and the punishments that were given to Agos newspaper, Arat Dink and Sarkis Seropyan all constitute a regeneration of the “otherness” on the part of Armenians.
Therefore, as the Armenian people intermingle with the rest of the society, at the same time they intermingle among themselves. Two processes go hand in hand: Armenians lead the practices of being a citizen (despite all the deficiencies and insufficiencies), but they, at the same time, regenerate the quality of being an enclosed community. “Community” stands for a territory that should be protected. The protection of language and religion, and the resistance against getting married with citizens from other communities are topics under discussion.
Private Domain versus Public Domain
The status of being an Armenian in Turkey, which swings in an ambivalence between citizenship and being a community, results in different types of behavior at home and on the street. For instance, the Armenian language may not be used everywhere, and it stands as a language privately used among friends and family members in the private domain. This conflicting lifestyle leads to a “schizophrenic” type of living. Similar to other groups in Turkey who have to behave differently in public and private domains (such as women wearing turbans), this situation leads to the occurrence of a different and more creative process. Paradoxically, thanks to this very experience, those who cannot act in the way they actually want to, generally create a new alternative platform where extraordinary ideas may exist.
Without any doubt, this swinging movement between citizenship and community or between public domain and the private one is not easy to deal with by all the individuals separately. That is because, swinging is an exhausting process, which leads, in the end, to completely giving up the game or giving up one side of the ambivalence. The individuals either begin to act like “everyone” and give up the efforts to preserve their difference, or they simply take shelter in the community and give up the idea of being a citizenship. In other words, either a total assimilation is put into practice in accordance of an” absolute fidelity”, or an escape to the “suburbs” is made possible. However, in addition to these two situations we might call failure, a third option also exists: the sound of the swing assumes importance and appears as enrichment. A new type of citizenship is molded at this point: “an intercultural citizenship”; that is, being a citizen in the public domain of Turkey and making this possible by being an Armenian.
In other words, instead of an Armenian identity that cannot talk in public and is talked about by others, and takes shelter under the wings of the community, a new type of Armenian identity is established: one that is able to talk on behalf of its own in the public domain.
The murder of 19 January has further clarified this ambivalent situation; while a part of Armenians dominantly feel “anxiety”, “nervousness” or “suppression”, others experience feelings of “further adopting their identities”, “awareness” and “courage”, which, in the end, may be another channel where they may voice their opinions.
Identity, Similarity and the Right to Difference
At first sight, according to the study, an impression that Armenians now stand more distant from politics is received. Evidence is found indicating that Armenians are reluctant to answer some questions or pay attention to certain subjects. However, the first impression does not appear to bear the whole truth: behind it, other data is also available that render it possible to make further evaluations.
It may be observed that Armenians, who were supporting the CHP (Republican People’s Party) as a defender of the official ideology (due to the impacts of the shades of the past and now secular nationalism), have been supporting the AKP and, more obviously, independent representatives like Baskýn Oran who they think might be the voice of their community.
In addition to this type of political standpoint, Armenian people have also been supporting a new type of identity they call “identities with hyphens” (“Turkish-Armenian”, “Turk-Armenian”, “Kurdish-Armenian”, etc). These hyphened identities emphasize another type of alternative existence, a constitution of meaning, thus a different type of political standpoint.
On the other hand, Armenians who took part in the questionnaire and who stated that “they were not interested in politics” led us to another result. That is, yes, it may be true that Armenians are not practically involved in politics, but their sole existence as an Armenian makes them a political figure in the country. Especially with their capacity of “carrying more than one dimension” among young people, with their feature of being both a citizen and a member of the community, or being both private and public, with their quality of forming an intercultural identity, Armenians seem to have the potential of generating a new type of political stance. Like all other groups that have “extra-ordinary qualities”, it is vitally important to perceive Armenians as a group peculiar to their own.
Finally, if we are to summarize this political standpoint generated by Armenians, we should conclude that Armenians demand the right to be “similar” and “different” at the same time. And as this demand is made obvious to the extent that Armenians are able to voice their opinions, this very demand is equal to that of the whole of Turkish society. In other words, Armenians hold a mirror onto the faces of the members of Turkish society so that they may observe and reflect upon themselves.
http://www.norzartonk.org/en/?p=15
|
