About our essence

When news reaches you that could put a person under suspicion regarding any matter, investigating it thoroughly is crucial to avoid arriving at an unjust and unmerciful judgment about that person. Observing this is commanded to Muslims in the Holy Qur'an (Surah Al-Hujurat) with great emphasis. Therefore, this should be the most important rule for a kind of Islamic media and communication theory.

To be honest, political debates are driven so heavily by political grudge that abiding by this principle can turn into a true test of one's soul. You can easily decide to research the truth of a bad piece of news about someone you feel sympathy for; however, displaying the same sensitivity toward news regarding those you do not feel sympathy for due to their political stance is much more difficult. This applies not only to simple news items but equally to any theoretical critique. Looking at it optimistically, sometimes people may not even realize that they are committing an injustice in this regard.

Last week, statements by the President of the Turkish Historical Society, Prof. Yusuf Halaçoğlu, which surfaced piecemeal in the media, generated a significant reaction. However, a major part of this reaction manifested as "taking sides" in attitudes against his words as reported in the media, taking them at face value as reported. This is, I suppose, an example of our typical behavior in many debates.

Personally, since I did not have full command of the complete transcript of Prof. Halaçoğlu's speech, I refrained from passing judgment on his person or views and contented myself with participating in the debate by offering an evaluation regarding the function of the Turkish Historical Society in Turkey. It is a good thing I did so. Because with Halaçoğlu's subsequent explanations and the emergence of the full transcript of the speech, it is now understood a bit better that his words—even though I do not agree with many of them, and even though my critiques regarding the function of the T.T.K. he heads throughout its history remain—deserve to be discussed at least as much as those of any serious scholar. Unfortunately, however, given the manner in which it was presented in the media, one of the most serious parties in a potential productive debate was sought to be sidelined.

In his interviews with Nuriye Akman (Zaman, September 2, 2007) and other newspapers, Prof. Halaçoğlu actually presents a profile of someone who is quite aware of the flaws and weaknesses exhibited by official nationalism in creating a peaceful and integrative society in Turkey, and who does not share these weaknesses. A significant portion of his statements that were perceived as racism stems, in fact, from his stance being far removed from the attitude of "denial" directed toward different elements, which has been criticized for years. He even argues that Kurdish ethnology cannot be brushed aside with the "kart-kurt" mentality; on the contrary, Kurds should be recognized as Kurds, and if necessary, a Kurdish studies institute should even be established.

The way to integrate different elements into a single nation in Turkey is obviously not to deny their existence or origins. On the contrary, the ideal of a nation can very well be achieved by recognizing the existence of different elements, and even by assisting their efforts to uncover their own historical origins or identities. Since this effort of "seeking origins" lacks an objective criterion, it will inherently be open to all kinds of speculative interventions; yet one way to overcome this issue is none other than participating in the debate and historiography as an equal "intervener." In the end, everyone will define themselves however they wish to define themselves.

People should not have to conceal their ethnic or religious origins. However, one must also respect the new self-definitions that people adopt. Pressures that remind people of their origins in response to the new definitions they have adopted are just as unacceptable as keeping people under pressures where they are forced to conceal their origins.

Ultimately, we hope that what Prof. Halaçoğlu said will serve as an occasion for conducting these debates in a proper manner. It is very appropriate that Akman conducted this interview after the initial flame of the debate had died down. Thanks to this, among the many reasonable things Mr. Halaçoğlu said, now that the issue regarding the essence of the Turks has been brought up, we can evaluate in a more level-headed manner the following words he uttered in response to Akman's question "which essence of ours?", asked with reference to the negative examples in our culture: “The negative examples we are experiencing right now are not our essence. Today, it is the form in which Iranian, Indian, and Arab culture has penetrated us. We have lost our own essence through what we took from them.”

As you know, these matters of "essence" are always at least this intricate. It is nearly impossible for a person to emerge unscathed from discussions about essence without straying into racist, othering, or culturally derogatory attitudes. Everything good is from us, everything bad is from them…

Racism may not always be a person's conscious choice "as racism"; sometimes it is something that somehow contaminates one's discourse. Of course, the way to overcome this lies in adopting an understanding in which people's "words and actions" rather than their existing essences, and their chosen characteristics rather than what has been "given" to them, are given greater importance.