The niveau of Discussions in Turkey and the issue of Intersubjectivities
Intersubjectivities can be summarised briefly as “those shared notions of the nature of social relations which tend to perpetuate habits and expectations of behaviour” (Cox, 2007, 516). Intersubjectivities can be taken as the fundamental upon which social discourses take place, they are in a way the reflections of the common sense at a definitive place and time. They frame the possibilities of discussions, and possible options, they draw the limits of possible. They are not unique nor they are essentials which are constant in time and close to change. They are a part of the human mind, and as the human mind modifies itself through the contact with the material conditions in which it finds itself, they do change. We can discern the historical evolution of these intersubjectivities and by doing so we can (if we wish to) strive to change them through political action.
Controversial issues and the discussions that took place around them is a time of photo opportunity for the curious intellectual. The more controversial the issue the more sentimental and natural the discussion. They are the gateway to understand the niveau of the discussions and intersubjectivities shared by people who feel themselves mentally belong to a specific groups of social forces.
In Turkey such a discussion began to take place during the last week, following such a controversial campaign on a even more controversial issue.
Some independent intellectuals of Turkey, decided to sign a petition to present their excuse for the neglect of research and action on the issue of the ‘Grreat Tragedy’ the Armenian people experienced during the 1915. Turkey sometimes digs her head in the ground and behave like the three-monkeys, never heard, never saw, never spoken about it. Since the last decade, the issue of the Armenian tragedy was officially forgotten. If yes, then it is portrayed as a case in which Ottoman Armenians collaborated with the Russians and other enemies during the First War and hence forces to leave their home and deported to south of the Ottoman Empire. The Turkish state officially accepts that there were a number of death, this was due to bad weather and famine. In no ways, an assault on the population took place. Anyone questioning this would have to bear harsh criticisms and be labelled as a traitor.
The President Gül, commented on the campaign and he said that it is good for the maturing of the Turkish democracy. Paradoxically, a parliamentarian from the allegedly social democrat, member of the Socialist International, the party of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi. She is a member of Parliament from the most social-democrat city of Turkey, the secular castle of Izmir. She commented that one has to search the President’s mother’s families ties, to understand the President’s smooth respond to the campaign. She by no means meant that the mother of the President is to be an Armenian. This kind of a fascist tone that easily pronounced by such a lady MP. This is the time to shoot the film, and to take a snapshot of the intersubjectivities in Turkey.
During the last 5 years, I have been seeing a proliferation of Turkish flags in houses and streets in Turkey. Sometimes these are near the autobahns, on the mountains and at the balconies of houses. One can have the feeling that Turkey just came out of the war gloriously. In the last 10 years, private TV channels are pumping nationalist images through bad-quality Turkish series. The character is mostly a Turkish and Muslim hero, fighting against the bad word of underground or PKK or even the United States. Crazyheart they call this kind of people.
This is a new dimension of the intersubjectivity in Turkey. The Sevres Syndrome, which always seeks external enemies behind all actions in Turkey, and such intellectuals were mostly seen as collaborative of external agents. They can be puppets of SOROS, of CIA and the covert world. They cannot have their own idea and own motivation to question an issue in Turkey, it is impossible because it is an intersubjectively acceptance that there is always a plot against the Turkish state.
The President’s reply, is another wonderful moment of photography. A sudden rush of sentimentality. The President officially announced his family tree, and shared with the people, that he was a Muslim and a Turk. So he officially certified his identity. He was not an Armenian, as if being an Armenian is something bad. How can she blame her mother as Armenian? I would be happy if the conversation ended here, but it went, I am a Muslim Turk, i cannot be an Armenian. Both parts of the discussion illustrate the niveau of discussions in Turkey nowadays.
Prime Minister Erdogan was again fantastic on his comments about the issue. He said, “They must have committed genocide because they are apologizing. The Turkish Republic has no such problem.” – “We cannot join a campaign such as this just because writers started it. Personally I do not accept their campaign, nor take part in it. We did not commit any crime, why should we apologize? This is a debate discussed by historians.”