Anti-Post Modern

This is a painting by a famous Ottoman painter named Osman Hamdi Bey. Though I had seen the painting before, I was not aware of it's creator of of the general dialog that it is associated with. Today, our program had a lecture on 'How to be an Orientalist: the Case of Osman Hamdi Bey." By using examples of his work, the lecturer tried to make the case that Osman Hamdi Bey represented a Ottoman Orientalist, who created his works based solely on the Orientalist notion of the 'static' east. I must admit I was not convinced, as overall I am starting to have doubt about the Orientalist discourse and post-modernism as a whole.

First of all, post-modernism has infiltrated the field of history. It has sought to expose hidden symbols and discourses. This of course is not unique to post-modernism, though some claim it is. Post modernism in my mind has exposed nothing particularly new or innovative. Michel Foucault's pan-opticon for example is a given it seems. Of course societies are set up to self regulate. The Ottoman millet system was a deliberate way to regulate the empire through self government. This is nothing new, in fact, self regulation has been a conscious goal. Foucault himself is ageist, if such a word exists. He assumes that pre-modern societies were based on violent demonstrations of power by the monarch. This is not the case, it's unhistorical. Therefore, what is an unhistorical hypothesis doing in the field of history!

Now on the the Orientalist dialog. I buy parts of it, certainly. This painting for example is something romantic, and by its nature depicts idealism over reality. Does this mean that it's necessarily Orientalist? If Said's original idea of Orientalism meant a power relation of the West to subjugate the east, then how can you lump a eastern Ottoman artist in the Orientalist camp? Yes, he may have produced art for the sake of wowing the Europeans, and yes, the art may have been unhistorical and highly romanticized, but does it necessarily demonstrate the same 'power relation' that Said was speaking of?

Nostalgia is not equal to Orientalism. This painting is nostalgic. Perhaps Osman Hamdi Bey painted it as a nationalist nostalgic longing for a time when the Ottoman Empire was stronger. Also, religious Turks and Turks who idealize the Ottoman empire have and admire copies of paintings such as these. So though scholars attempt to group paintings such as these into a movement that 'dominated' the east, it does not necessarily ring true. Paintings such as these are admired today and are used as symbols for a generation or a time that once was. This painting is in many ways like the film Gone with the Wind. Both are idealistic/romantic depictions of what the artists thought the age in question was like. Does that mean that they are connected with reality? Well, there could very well be aspects of reality as much as there are aspects of fantasy.

Orientalism is Orientalist! It assumes that the all encompassing 'West' HAD the power to dominate every aspect of the east. It assumes the east was a passive player in this process. Which 'east' are we talking about here? China, Japan, the Ottomans? And which west: Britain, France, Portugal, Spain? And why do we limit it to modern times, what about the Caliphate in Spain, the Persian Empire, Greece, Rome, India. This 'domination' is not unique to the west, and 'subjugation' is not unique to the east. Most major empires/civilizations throughout history have 'dominated', most peoples have been 'subjugated'. But domination/subjugation themselves are not able to be commonly applied.

Empires were a fluid system. The people in Empires where a fluid people. There was a negotiation between the ruler and ruled. There was overlap (as I spoke about yesterday) between domination and subjugation. And most importantly, there was participation on behalf of the rulers and ruled. This reality works against the meta narratives of both post-modernist and Orientalist dialogs.

There is no exact common experience to history. Each case and each time has to be studied and researched individually. There are certainly patterns over time, but that does not mean that patterns breed commonality.

Issues of Overlap

Who would you guess the woman in the photo is? She's fashionable, she's reading (an indication of being educated), she's allowing herself to be photographed (an indication of openness). The woman in the photo is Princess Hadice Hayriye Ayshe Dürrühsehvar, the daughter of the last Caliph of Islam before the abolition of the office in 1924.

In Turkish history, the Kemalist regime is seen as the great modernizing regime and the Caliphate is often characterized as a backwards institution that held the Turks back from complete modernization. Is this necessarily true? After all, the Tanzimat movement was a product of the Ottoman Sultans' need to modernize. The princess' father, the Caliph of Islam, believed deeply in women's education. The princess herself believed in employment for women and an abolition to the segregation of women from men.

Was modernity in Turkey a foregone conclusion? If so, then the two camps differed in what respect modernity would be implemented. The Kemalists completely abolished the Caliphate system, but did not try to eradicate Islam itself. They merely sought to bureaucratize and institutionalize it within the secular state system. Had the Caliphate survived, secularism would probably not have been eradicated either but bureaucratized and institutionalized within the religious state system.

People see Turkey as struggling with opposing forces: Islam and secularism. But the reality is, both are institutionalized in society and in government. It's not necessarily an issue two opposing forces so much as a issue of overlap. Where do the two meet? Where do the two diverge? Did Ataturk create something unique, or did he finally synthesize what Sultan Mahmut II, Abdulmecid I and the CUP created which was a state where secularism and Islam overlapped?

Misafirperverlik

I have just come back from Taksim square. It's late and I have yet to do some of my assignments for tomorrow. But I have chosen to write this blog because in many ways what I experienced tonight is more important that any assignment could ever be.

I went drinking with two Turkish buddies of mine and experienced Turkish hospitality. Of course, this is not new to me, after all, the notion of hospitality (or in Turkish, misafirperverlik) is widespread. But I am amazed at the extent to which the Turks are so open, so warm to their guests. Last night, I stayed the night with Erhan, my roommate in Lubbock, and his sister and her roommate. They were open with their home, even insisting that I sleep in one of their beds (they of course, doubled up on a couch!!). Then tonight, I was treated to beer, fries, and great conversation with some other Turkish friends of mine. The reason: I'm their "guest."

The Turks, as a society, are selfless. They go to great lengths to make guests feel welcome, in this they sacrifice a lot. It has been my experience that they want nothing in return. But misafirperverlik also makes me want to engage with them in a more open and honest way. The Turks truly love great conversation, with complex subjects like politics or religion. I find myself fascinated as to what they have to say, I am content just to listen.

We have a stereotype of the east, but this stereotype is nothing but the product of ignorance. The Turks are assertive, quick, knowledgeable, and patient. Their sense of humor also compliments them. Another thing about Turkish hospitality is that it is not expected to be paid back. But I will pay Turkey back for its enormous hospitality, I will work all the harder to learn the language, to become a better listener, and maybe one day, to give the Turks another medium through which they can tell their history.

Language Revolution

In the years after Mustafa Kemal founded the new Turkish republic, he and his regime sought to create a definite Turkish identity. The Ottoman Empire had been governed by the Turks in Istanbul, but it's main identity was Islamic, not Turkish. In the new republic, the Kemalists sought to change that. They first abolished Islamic institutions, then sought to rediscover (in many cases, invent) what it meant to be Turkish.

One of the ways they did was to implement what they called "language revolution," or a total overhaul of the Ottoman language. To start with, they abolished the Arabic script and implemented the Latin script. Then, the state began to change the language itself. Arabic/Farsi root words were thrown out and new words derived from ancient Turkish root words were created. For example, the old Ottoman word for airplane was 'tayyare' but during the language revolution, it was thrown out due to it's non Turkish root. In it's place the word 'uçak' (coming from 'uç' to fly) was adopted.

The language revolution is both a resounding success and a dismal failure. It failed to completely get rid of Arabic/Persian words from Turkish. For a time, there was even linguistic chaos as people, enthusiastic to take part in the purification of the language, began to invent their own words and root systems. But the language revolution was and is also a success. The Latin alphabet provided a logical alternative to the Arabic script, which did not represent the vowels so important in Turkic languages. Also, the language reflected in many ways, the language spoken by the common people in Anatolia. The standardization of the new language was quickly realized.

The fascinating to me is how radical yet logical the Kemalist language revolution was. The regime was not so much a reforming regime as a revolutionary one. In looking to the past, the Kemalists were creating a brand new identity for the future. Historians see the Bolsheviks, the Maoists, the Jacobins as traditionally revolutionary regimes. No doubt they are. But it's fascinating to think that just as Lenin and the Bolsheviks were beginning to implement their radical transformation of the old Russian empire, so too was Mustafa Kemal and the Kemalists implementing their own radical transformation of society. I think it would be interesting to look into the structure of the Kemalist regime, just as authors have looked, for example, at the structure of the Stalinist regime.

Turkish cinema

Today after classes were over, we saw a Turkish film called Mutluluk, or in English: Happiness. It was about a girl in the east of Turkey who had been raped. After being traumatized, she is made an outcast by the village as the blame for the rape is placed on her. She is refered to as 'unclean' many times. The plot progresses much more than this, but it's the idea of the film that is so compelling. Seeing Multuluk for the second time, I appreciated what the filmmaker was trying to accomplish. Did he suceed fully? I don't think so. But the issue of tradition versus modernity is brought up.

Turkish cinema, in my opinion, is in the process of inventing itself. It has traditionally lagged behind other cinematic traditions, Iranian cinema being a higly developped and complex example. But Turkish cinema can achieve something other regional cinematic traditions cannot for the moment: it can be daring. Could Mutluluk be made in Iran for example? Not the the degree it was in Turkey. Leila is a highly complex Iranian film dealing with societal issues, but the director cannot be 100% straightforward with the audience. (Which, in fact, adds to the allure of the film in many ways).

But Turkish cinema can be bold, can probe societal questions because Turkey itself is opening up. It's opening up religiously, opening up to both east and west, it's opening up culturally too. Nuri Bilge Ceylan, Reha Erdem, Abdullah Oğuz, these are the faces of a new Turkish cinema.

Taksim rally

Pushing through the masses of people in Taksim towards an impenetrable swarm of protesters carrying banners, signs, and raising their fists in the air. They chant in unison, "eşcinseller susmayacak." Yes, you are witnessing a gay pride rally in a majority Muslim country.

If this doesn't smash the stereotypes westerners have of the east, then what truly can? Then again, Turkey is a highly complex place that almost defies "east" or "west" labels. No one hid his or her face, no one sat timidly, content with merely participating by being there. No, this crowd was passionate. I was surprised to see women wearing headscarves also participating in the march. "Eşcinseller susmayacak." This chant plays over and over in my mind. I think to myself, "I have been silent." Not just about this, but about other things in my life. Sessiz Wesley, ürkek Wesley. But seeing this crowd today, these people who's skin fits them, who own their truth and are not ashamed of it, has awaken something in me.

My skin has not fit for a long time.