Tweet
Today's Zaman, Turkey
May 5 2011
The `freakish' nature of the statue
by ETYEN MAHÃ?UPYAN
Turkey's conservative religious people usually can't fight the
irresistible attraction of symbolism when looking at the West. When
assessing the West, they try to locate the points that separate it
from `us' and then turn those distinctions into symbols.
Almost always, these distinctions are made over qualities that we
believe `we' posses and the West does not (at least not yet). It is
for this reason that the dominant theme in the religious segment of
society's outlook on the West is `morals.' On the other hand it is
difficult to understand thoroughly what exactly morals means in the
West. Understanding the other side helps you to be more understanding
of it and it minimizes the differences between you two. But as a
result of this, you don't deliver the political message that you
initially set out to make. For this reason, conservative religious
people are not really interested in understanding the West. They want
the cultural difference between themselves and the other side to be
clearly visible so that they can use it for political purposes.
These types of observations about Turks have created the impression
and expectation that Westerners can look at developments more
objectively than we can. However, the recent debate in European
countries regarding Turkey shows that this impression is not correct
at all. That is because this debate does not rely on the facts but on
the symbolization of differences that people believe exist between the
West and Turkey. In short, the West is starting to act more Eastern.
Modernity had implied the Westernization of the East. But to the
contrary, a culture of instrumentalizing and making the other
superficial has started to emerge.
There are several examples of this. But the most enlightening one is
the debate about the `freak' statue. As is known, sculptor Mehmet
Aksoy had started building a statue in Kars a few years ago called the
`Monument to Humanity' that was meant to symbolize the friendship
between Turkey and Armenia or the friendship between Turks and
Armenians in line with the decision of the municipal council. But
because the place where the statue was being built was an
archeological site, the local Monuments Council asked the sculptor to
stop building the statue. After the municipal elections, the new
municipal administration showed opposition to the statue as well and
started discussing its demolition. When speaking about the issue Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an said the statue was a `freak' and the
media started covering several topics, from the Justice and
Development Party's (AK Party) understanding of aesthetics to its
anti-democratic character.
The issue is very popular in Europe because this very symbolic
situation was used to inflame political opinion against the AK Party.
One of the arguments is that a democratically made decision is being
disregarded. OK, but isn't the decision of the new municipal council
as equally democratic as the former one? But more importantly can a
local decision be made a topic that concerns everyone in Turkey and
that is politically binding for everyone? Can such a decision be
called democratic? It's important to understand that this monument is
related to the Armenian issue, and whether we like it or not there is
a central policy regarding the issue. Moreover, almost everyone in
Turkey has a positive or negative feeling about this issue. It is for
this reason that the erection of such a statue requires a debate that
involves everyone in society. But the decision to build the statue in
Kars was an anti-democratic decision that did not take this need into
consideration.
The second topic is the name of the statue. Calling a statue a
monument to `humanity' is indicative of an arrogant and inconsiderate
attitude. Now that the statue is going to be demolished, certain
people may find pleasure in saying, `The AK Party is destroying the
monument to humanity,' but a more democratic process is required to
give that name to the statue. In short, aside from the statue itself,
the way in which it was built and the meanings that have been ascribed
to it are really what makes it a `freak.'
These sentences may surprise those in Armenia. But if you can resist
the symbolic attraction of the `freak' debate, then the situation can
be seen clearly: It is inappropriate to try to `fix' the Armenian
issue or to earn points on it by building a statue. Turkey does not
deserve this kind of a monument just yet because the issue has not
been debated or digested enough, nor has Turkey faced its past where
this matter is concerned.
Someone who works for a foreign radio station asked me about whether
the demolition of the statue would cause relations between Turkey and
Armenia to deteriorate. In return I asked him: Had the construction of
the statue made relations between Turkey and Armenia better?
http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-242890-the-freakish-nature-of-the-statue.html
From: A. Papazian
May 5 2011
The `freakish' nature of the statue
by ETYEN MAHÃ?UPYAN
Turkey's conservative religious people usually can't fight the
irresistible attraction of symbolism when looking at the West. When
assessing the West, they try to locate the points that separate it
from `us' and then turn those distinctions into symbols.
Almost always, these distinctions are made over qualities that we
believe `we' posses and the West does not (at least not yet). It is
for this reason that the dominant theme in the religious segment of
society's outlook on the West is `morals.' On the other hand it is
difficult to understand thoroughly what exactly morals means in the
West. Understanding the other side helps you to be more understanding
of it and it minimizes the differences between you two. But as a
result of this, you don't deliver the political message that you
initially set out to make. For this reason, conservative religious
people are not really interested in understanding the West. They want
the cultural difference between themselves and the other side to be
clearly visible so that they can use it for political purposes.
These types of observations about Turks have created the impression
and expectation that Westerners can look at developments more
objectively than we can. However, the recent debate in European
countries regarding Turkey shows that this impression is not correct
at all. That is because this debate does not rely on the facts but on
the symbolization of differences that people believe exist between the
West and Turkey. In short, the West is starting to act more Eastern.
Modernity had implied the Westernization of the East. But to the
contrary, a culture of instrumentalizing and making the other
superficial has started to emerge.
There are several examples of this. But the most enlightening one is
the debate about the `freak' statue. As is known, sculptor Mehmet
Aksoy had started building a statue in Kars a few years ago called the
`Monument to Humanity' that was meant to symbolize the friendship
between Turkey and Armenia or the friendship between Turks and
Armenians in line with the decision of the municipal council. But
because the place where the statue was being built was an
archeological site, the local Monuments Council asked the sculptor to
stop building the statue. After the municipal elections, the new
municipal administration showed opposition to the statue as well and
started discussing its demolition. When speaking about the issue Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an said the statue was a `freak' and the
media started covering several topics, from the Justice and
Development Party's (AK Party) understanding of aesthetics to its
anti-democratic character.
The issue is very popular in Europe because this very symbolic
situation was used to inflame political opinion against the AK Party.
One of the arguments is that a democratically made decision is being
disregarded. OK, but isn't the decision of the new municipal council
as equally democratic as the former one? But more importantly can a
local decision be made a topic that concerns everyone in Turkey and
that is politically binding for everyone? Can such a decision be
called democratic? It's important to understand that this monument is
related to the Armenian issue, and whether we like it or not there is
a central policy regarding the issue. Moreover, almost everyone in
Turkey has a positive or negative feeling about this issue. It is for
this reason that the erection of such a statue requires a debate that
involves everyone in society. But the decision to build the statue in
Kars was an anti-democratic decision that did not take this need into
consideration.
The second topic is the name of the statue. Calling a statue a
monument to `humanity' is indicative of an arrogant and inconsiderate
attitude. Now that the statue is going to be demolished, certain
people may find pleasure in saying, `The AK Party is destroying the
monument to humanity,' but a more democratic process is required to
give that name to the statue. In short, aside from the statue itself,
the way in which it was built and the meanings that have been ascribed
to it are really what makes it a `freak.'
These sentences may surprise those in Armenia. But if you can resist
the symbolic attraction of the `freak' debate, then the situation can
be seen clearly: It is inappropriate to try to `fix' the Armenian
issue or to earn points on it by building a statue. Turkey does not
deserve this kind of a monument just yet because the issue has not
been debated or digested enough, nor has Turkey faced its past where
this matter is concerned.
Someone who works for a foreign radio station asked me about whether
the demolition of the statue would cause relations between Turkey and
Armenia to deteriorate. In return I asked him: Had the construction of
the statue made relations between Turkey and Armenia better?
http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-242890-the-freakish-nature-of-the-statue.html
From: A. Papazian