Tweet
UNDERSTANDING TURKEY: A PERPETUAL CASE OF 'ANLAMADıM'
Today's Zaman
Nov 25 2012
Turkey
This very useful word means simply, "I do not understand." It is one
that will be used in all sorts of situations.
It will accompany a blank face in response to a request from a
passer-by. It will accompany a friendly smile in response to a torrent
of Turkish from an elderly lady by your side in the bus queue. It will
accompany a knitted brow as you try to understand the difference the
shopkeeper is explaining between two options you seem to have.
Sometimes I wonder whether it is a good idea to teach a newcomer the
word "anlamadım." After all, it must be obvious from their facial
expression and body language that they don't understand. The very
use of a Turkish word encourages their interlocutor in the conviction
that the foreigner will follow what they say if they repeat it just
as fast, and even add some more sentences for good measure.
Once you have got a good grounding of the language, "anlamadım"
is not relegated to a dusty shelf. Your use of it will change. No
longer meaning "I don't understand what," now you will find yourself
using it in the sense of "I don't understand why."
This feeling of not having understood what makes the locals tick comes
and goes in the early years. Just as with the cycle of culture shock
(the first period everything is amazingly wonderful -- the second
period everything is disastrously awful -- the final period everything
is cool in an equilibrium of good and bad), there is a cycle to how
well you understand the host culture.
We have all met the "two-year expert" who has got it all worked out.
If they stay a few more years, they realize that they don't know
everything they thought they knew.
I used to wonder why the analysts at the consulates in İstanbul
would be rotated to other countries after a few years. Surely, if
they were to stay longer in any one country, they would understand
it more and provide more accurate and useful information. It seems
that just when one of them has worked out what Turkey is all about
they are whisked off to, say, Ghana or the Philippines, a totally
different culture entirely.
Of course the reason for this is the understanding cycle: Apparently,
the first year or so their intel and analysis isn't worth much, as
they haven't yet got a grasp of what is going on. Then for the next
few years it is totally valuable. After that, it's quality begins
to tail off since the analyst begins to be so identified with the
host culture that either they don't notice the "differences" or so
empathize with the host culture that see it as more justified than
their own in certain circumstances.
Contrary to the political paymasters who want to read information
to their strategic or political advantage, the long-term resident or
long-term observer on Turkey has a lot of valuable things to say to
those of us wanting a balanced view of the country.
In his regular blog on the web, Okan University lecturer Alan Scott,
in his second decade here, recognizes that "anlamadım" is often
the response of even the most experienced Turkey-commentator. He
admits that, "defining or even describing Turkey and its people is
an elusive task."
He posts a new article every seven to 10 days, and now a collection of
these articles from 2009-2011 have been published in a book entitled
"Turkey File: A rising star and its place in the world."
The book reads a bit like the blog that it is: Each chapter is a
self-contained article dealing with one particular aspect. Although
common themes run throughout, there is no progression of a central
theory leading to a final conclusion. This makes it ideal for the busy
reader in the modern world who wants to be able to dip in to a book
for 10 or 15 minutes, read a section and come away with a challenging
concept or idea. Conversely, it could be frustrating for one wanting
more depth.
This is a gutsy exploration of Turkey. Scott is not afraid to tackle
nearly all of the taboos. Religion, democracy, Greeks and other
minorities -- we learn Scott's opinion on all of these and more. He
even entitles one chapter "Who killed the Armenians?" Refreshingly
controversial, particularly for the reader fed up with the Emperor's
New Clothes style of herd journalism, Scott's Turco-phile leanings
still come through strongly. A good job too for an author who dares
to try to define "Turkishness" in a country where insulting that
quality is a criminal offence.
Scott's aim can be found in the introduction to his blog "Open-minded
visitors find their prior assumptions called into question -- and
their Western-centered view of history and world affairs constantly
challenged." In other words, he wants to try to help non-Turks
understand that their understanding of Turkey is often, in fact,
a misunderstanding -- based on a preconception from history.
A few of his early experiences as a Turkey taught him that. Doing
the class roll-call and finding some very nicely behaved guys called
Genghis and Attila caused him to question why Turks viewed those
names differently.
But perhaps the most formative experience was being a New Zealander
on the Turkish school trip to Gallipoli. Discovering why the Turks
celebrated victory day in Canakkale on 18 March ("Hang on a minute! We
Anzacs didn't even get there until 25 April!") taught him an even
greater lesson about understanding history from different perspectives.
Scott's book is all about seeing another point of view. "Sometimes it
is good for us to see another slant on events we think we understand,
in order to appreciate the slant that has influenced our own
perspective." It is a clarion-call against prejudice. Where he falls
into generalizations, he recognizes this: With a writing style that is
reminiscent of a favorite lecturer in conversation with his students,
Scott pokes fun at his own comments -- "as gross over-simplifications
go, that one is staggering in its presumptuousness."
However, in his attempt to redress the anti-Turkish slant of much
Western comment, Scott does sometimes stray into the realm of
over-empathizing with his new homeland. In an otherwise remarkable
chapter detailing assistance given by Turkish officials and
ministers to Jews fleeing the atrocities of Nazi-occupied Europe,
he reduces instances of attacks on Jewish minorities to the status of
"local incidents." The infamous events of September 1955 were albeit
targeted mainly on the Greeks, but Jewish businesses and a synagogue
were also destroyed. Far from being a "local incident" its political
ramifications included the resignation of the minister of the interior.
Scott has clearly researched his subject well. His curiosity is
awakened by issues that others pass blindly by. I imagine him as a
terrier on the scent of a trail, always asking questions to find out
what is at the heart of the matter, never satisfied until he has got
the real answer. He regularly uses phrases such as: "I hate things
like this. They make me want to find out why," or "I'm irresistibly
fascinated by these little historical mysteries so I had to check
it out."
His conclusions may not be mainstream; they may not fit into the
accepted view of things. Agree with him or not, you've got to like
his style and admire his forthrightness. And to hope he will keep on
turning over the stones that the rest of us just pass blithely by.
"Turkey File," by Alan Scott, published by Create Space, 6.50 pounds
in paperback ISBN: 978-147008247-5
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-299193-understanding-turkey-a-perpetual-case-of-anlamadim.html
From: Baghdasarian
Today's Zaman
Nov 25 2012
Turkey
This very useful word means simply, "I do not understand." It is one
that will be used in all sorts of situations.
It will accompany a blank face in response to a request from a
passer-by. It will accompany a friendly smile in response to a torrent
of Turkish from an elderly lady by your side in the bus queue. It will
accompany a knitted brow as you try to understand the difference the
shopkeeper is explaining between two options you seem to have.
Sometimes I wonder whether it is a good idea to teach a newcomer the
word "anlamadım." After all, it must be obvious from their facial
expression and body language that they don't understand. The very
use of a Turkish word encourages their interlocutor in the conviction
that the foreigner will follow what they say if they repeat it just
as fast, and even add some more sentences for good measure.
Once you have got a good grounding of the language, "anlamadım"
is not relegated to a dusty shelf. Your use of it will change. No
longer meaning "I don't understand what," now you will find yourself
using it in the sense of "I don't understand why."
This feeling of not having understood what makes the locals tick comes
and goes in the early years. Just as with the cycle of culture shock
(the first period everything is amazingly wonderful -- the second
period everything is disastrously awful -- the final period everything
is cool in an equilibrium of good and bad), there is a cycle to how
well you understand the host culture.
We have all met the "two-year expert" who has got it all worked out.
If they stay a few more years, they realize that they don't know
everything they thought they knew.
I used to wonder why the analysts at the consulates in İstanbul
would be rotated to other countries after a few years. Surely, if
they were to stay longer in any one country, they would understand
it more and provide more accurate and useful information. It seems
that just when one of them has worked out what Turkey is all about
they are whisked off to, say, Ghana or the Philippines, a totally
different culture entirely.
Of course the reason for this is the understanding cycle: Apparently,
the first year or so their intel and analysis isn't worth much, as
they haven't yet got a grasp of what is going on. Then for the next
few years it is totally valuable. After that, it's quality begins
to tail off since the analyst begins to be so identified with the
host culture that either they don't notice the "differences" or so
empathize with the host culture that see it as more justified than
their own in certain circumstances.
Contrary to the political paymasters who want to read information
to their strategic or political advantage, the long-term resident or
long-term observer on Turkey has a lot of valuable things to say to
those of us wanting a balanced view of the country.
In his regular blog on the web, Okan University lecturer Alan Scott,
in his second decade here, recognizes that "anlamadım" is often
the response of even the most experienced Turkey-commentator. He
admits that, "defining or even describing Turkey and its people is
an elusive task."
He posts a new article every seven to 10 days, and now a collection of
these articles from 2009-2011 have been published in a book entitled
"Turkey File: A rising star and its place in the world."
The book reads a bit like the blog that it is: Each chapter is a
self-contained article dealing with one particular aspect. Although
common themes run throughout, there is no progression of a central
theory leading to a final conclusion. This makes it ideal for the busy
reader in the modern world who wants to be able to dip in to a book
for 10 or 15 minutes, read a section and come away with a challenging
concept or idea. Conversely, it could be frustrating for one wanting
more depth.
This is a gutsy exploration of Turkey. Scott is not afraid to tackle
nearly all of the taboos. Religion, democracy, Greeks and other
minorities -- we learn Scott's opinion on all of these and more. He
even entitles one chapter "Who killed the Armenians?" Refreshingly
controversial, particularly for the reader fed up with the Emperor's
New Clothes style of herd journalism, Scott's Turco-phile leanings
still come through strongly. A good job too for an author who dares
to try to define "Turkishness" in a country where insulting that
quality is a criminal offence.
Scott's aim can be found in the introduction to his blog "Open-minded
visitors find their prior assumptions called into question -- and
their Western-centered view of history and world affairs constantly
challenged." In other words, he wants to try to help non-Turks
understand that their understanding of Turkey is often, in fact,
a misunderstanding -- based on a preconception from history.
A few of his early experiences as a Turkey taught him that. Doing
the class roll-call and finding some very nicely behaved guys called
Genghis and Attila caused him to question why Turks viewed those
names differently.
But perhaps the most formative experience was being a New Zealander
on the Turkish school trip to Gallipoli. Discovering why the Turks
celebrated victory day in Canakkale on 18 March ("Hang on a minute! We
Anzacs didn't even get there until 25 April!") taught him an even
greater lesson about understanding history from different perspectives.
Scott's book is all about seeing another point of view. "Sometimes it
is good for us to see another slant on events we think we understand,
in order to appreciate the slant that has influenced our own
perspective." It is a clarion-call against prejudice. Where he falls
into generalizations, he recognizes this: With a writing style that is
reminiscent of a favorite lecturer in conversation with his students,
Scott pokes fun at his own comments -- "as gross over-simplifications
go, that one is staggering in its presumptuousness."
However, in his attempt to redress the anti-Turkish slant of much
Western comment, Scott does sometimes stray into the realm of
over-empathizing with his new homeland. In an otherwise remarkable
chapter detailing assistance given by Turkish officials and
ministers to Jews fleeing the atrocities of Nazi-occupied Europe,
he reduces instances of attacks on Jewish minorities to the status of
"local incidents." The infamous events of September 1955 were albeit
targeted mainly on the Greeks, but Jewish businesses and a synagogue
were also destroyed. Far from being a "local incident" its political
ramifications included the resignation of the minister of the interior.
Scott has clearly researched his subject well. His curiosity is
awakened by issues that others pass blindly by. I imagine him as a
terrier on the scent of a trail, always asking questions to find out
what is at the heart of the matter, never satisfied until he has got
the real answer. He regularly uses phrases such as: "I hate things
like this. They make me want to find out why," or "I'm irresistibly
fascinated by these little historical mysteries so I had to check
it out."
His conclusions may not be mainstream; they may not fit into the
accepted view of things. Agree with him or not, you've got to like
his style and admire his forthrightness. And to hope he will keep on
turning over the stones that the rest of us just pass blithely by.
"Turkey File," by Alan Scott, published by Create Space, 6.50 pounds
in paperback ISBN: 978-147008247-5
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-299193-understanding-turkey-a-perpetual-case-of-anlamadim.html
From: Baghdasarian