KEYNOTE SPEECHES
Notes for speech on behalf of the jury at the 2010 Sakip Sabanci Award ceremony at the Sabanci Museum on June 8, 2010
Winner: Juliette Tolay
Doctoral candidate at the University of Delaware, USA
Title of essay: Turkey’s Other Multicultural Debate: Lessons for the EU
Most of the time in relation between Turkey and EU: Turkey has to adapt to European standards
At two levels: bringing legislation in line with EU acquis (negotiating about chapters) and political reforms necessary to fulfill Copenhagen criteria
One way street: EU asks/demands, Turkey has to change laws/mentality. Therefore the word ‘negotiations’ is totally wrong.
Also on migration: Turkey has to deliver: sign a re-admission agreement (accept returned migrants from Europe), introduce biometrical passports, guard the borders better. EU will assist Turkey the coming years with hundreds of millions euro’s to try and reach these goals. Then, maybe, EU countries will soften their visa policy
On multiculturalism: EU often lectures Turkey on the lack of rights for ethnic and religious minorities. Situation in EU member states very different + all have problems with dealing with new migrants. Still, again one way street.
That makes this essay so refreshing: two way street approach
It looks at the way Turkey, Turkish society, deals with migrants. Not only the ‘traditional’ ones with Turkic background but also the new ones from Africa and Asia. In a way restoring the multicultural character of the Ottoman Empire that was lost during the Turkish republic.
Have to be careful there with the numbers. In Turkey we are speaking of relatively small numbers, not to be compared with the situation in the Ottoman Empire in the past and the present numbers of migrants in EU member states.
Still, very interestingly, the author looks at the way these new migrants are being seen and treated in Turkey:
Main characteristics:
Few limitations on getting into the country
No official policy on integration
Flexibility in society in accommodating the newcomers
No ‘unhealthy’ debate on multiculturalismIn EU: exactly the opposite
Can EU learn something from Turkey? Again, be careful because magnitude of problems and history of migration politics are totally different.
Still: provocative proposal for the EU to look more carefully at Turkey’s (lack of) migration policy. Is more in line with ‘the nature of the globalized world that is encouraging new forms of mobility’. Maybe the EU should accept migration and multiculturalism as facts of life that can better be handled in a flexible way than try to regulate each and every movement in detail.
It makes you think. It makes you smile. It makes you wonder.
And that makes it a good essay that deserves to win this price.
Notes for speech on behalf of the jury at the 2010 Sakip Sabanci Award ceremony at the Sabanci Museum on June 8, 2010
Winner: Juliette Tolay
Doctoral candidate at the University of Delaware, USA
Title of essay: Turkey’s Other Multicultural Debate: Lessons for the EU
Most of the time in relation between Turkey and EU: Turkey has to adapt to European standards
At two levels: bringing legislation in line with EU acquis (negotiating about chapters) and political reforms necessary to fulfill Copenhagen criteria
One way street: EU asks/demands, Turkey has to change laws/mentality. Therefore the word ‘negotiations’ is totally wrong.
Also on migration: Turkey has to deliver: sign a re-admission agreement (accept returned migrants from Europe), introduce biometrical passports, guard the borders better. EU will assist Turkey the coming years with hundreds of millions euro’s to try and reach these goals. Then, maybe, EU countries will soften their visa policy
On multiculturalism: EU often lectures Turkey on the lack of rights for ethnic and religious minorities. Situation in EU member states very different + all have problems with dealing with new migrants. Still, again one way street.
That makes this essay so refreshing: two way street approach
It looks at the way Turkey, Turkish society, deals with migrants. Not only the ‘traditional’ ones with Turkic background but also the new ones from Africa and Asia. In a way restoring the multicultural character of the Ottoman Empire that was lost during the Turkish republic.
Have to be careful there with the numbers. In Turkey we are speaking of relatively small numbers, not to be compared with the situation in the Ottoman Empire in the past and the present numbers of migrants in EU member states.
Still, very interestingly, the author looks at the way these new migrants are being seen and treated in Turkey:
Main characteristics:
Few limitations on getting into the country
No official policy on integration
Flexibility in society in accommodating the newcomers
No ‘unhealthy’ debate on multiculturalismIn EU: exactly the opposite
Can EU learn something from Turkey? Again, be careful because magnitude of problems and history of migration politics are totally different.
Still: provocative proposal for the EU to look more carefully at Turkey’s (lack of) migration policy. Is more in line with ‘the nature of the globalized world that is encouraging new forms of mobility’. Maybe the EU should accept migration and multiculturalism as facts of life that can better be handled in a flexible way than try to regulate each and every movement in detail.
It makes you think. It makes you smile. It makes you wonder.
And that makes it a good essay that deserves to win this price.
Keynote Speech by John Waterbury, Princeton University Transcript
Good evening ladies and gentlemen. It is a great honor for me to be here and to have been a member of the jury for this year's award ceremony. It is an even greater honor for me to be here before you this evening. I greatly appreciate the privilege and I salute Sabancı University and the Sabancı family for sponsoring this contest- this year devoted to pluralism in Turkish society. I apologize to you all that I am not able to deliver my remarks in Turkish. But I must say that the essays that I read were all written in English and in English better than my own.
Indeed those eight essays that we the jury considered were all of very high quality. I learned from them all and I appreciate the opportunity to read them all. I want to make a few summary remarks about those essays- at least my personal impressions of them. And then a few general remarks about pluralism itself. I should warn you that I am not- I do not consider myself a student or an expert on pluralism. I speak more as someone who simply lives in society whether it is in the US or here in the Middle East. And one who worries about diversity, pluralism and the respect for a wide range of opinions and practices.
The essays, with the exception of one, I think I can say fairly, did not spend a lot of time on what we would call the theory of pluralism. Only one seemed to engage that topic in some detail. Rather the essays plunged into what I would call into the mechanics of pluralism. That is how in Turkish society do various groups that may not share in the dominant ideology and paradigm of the country try to find their place, try to gain legitimacy and respect and indeed try to gain legal status in the system. So the essays moved rather quickly from the question of what is pluralism and why it is important and how in a theoretic way do we try to protect it to the actual mechanics: What our different groups are doing to try to carve out a place for themselves in Turkish society and Turkish politics. And they addressed what I think would probably the authors more pressing concerns in academic terms. Some were looking at an issue that is called social movements and how social movements form and establish themselves. Some were interested and using a methodology of either survey research that is public opinion or opinion research and content analysis of newspapers. Some employed an anthropological approach to try look right at the grassroots level. And indeed the winner of the contest was looking at the grassroots level from an anthropological, sociological point of view of how a group in current temporary Turkey seeks to carve and nurture itself. And at least one of the essays was very concerned with general political attitudes of the Turkish political elite. So very diverse approaches to this issue. But as I say it seems to me the common thread was looking at the mechanics rather than the general theory of pluralism in contemporary Turkish society and Turkish politics.
What struck me in reading across these papers was the sensitivity of the authors to certain paradoxes, certain contradictions that are merged in this study of mechanics and I'll just mention three or maybe four. One for instance, indeed I think the winner, I hope I don't abuse his own really profound analysis, looked at a paradox of the Alevis. Asserting their dead identity through a performance which is characterized as folkloric and using- and that was acceptable in a folkloric sense acceptable to present to a non-Alevi public. But in so doing, in a way, the Alevis debased their own religious identity which was the very thing they sought recognition for. So it was kind of a paradox in the sense that they had to go through a public folkloric presentation in order to gain official recognition of their religious identity. But in so doing they in a way debased that religious identity. There is the paradox mentioned in some papers of secularist Turks who feared the pressure coming from Europe to keep the military totally out of politics and in so doing perhaps jeopardizing what they, the secularists saw, as the last defense of their secularism. They were caught between two pressures and in a way have not yet reconciled that contradiction. A third that I noticed in at least two or three of the papers was in fact the role of the AKP which I think fascinated many of the authors where what does this represent. Presented as a challenge to what we might call the Kemalist paradigm prevailing in Turkey since the founding of the republic but at the same time perhaps borrowing one of the tenets of the Kemalist paradigm which either explicitly or implicitly has been that Sunni Islam is the religion of state. So AKP sets itself up as the alternative to the Kemalist paradigm but yet maybe borrows one of the basic pillars of it. So I am gonna conclude my remarks on those papers just saying that mechanics of pluralism are not clear cut in Turkey, the agendas of different groups are not consistent at all times. There are contradictions and paradoxes that either a student of this phenomenon or a practitioner must appreciate or I think take some delight in.
Let me move to some more general remarks on pluralism itself and I again emphasize that I am not an expert or a student. So I ask these simply as an observer. And, the first that, the first generalization that I would make is that at least in Western political theory, the concern for pluralism and the protection of pluralism, I believe arises out of a much deeper concern with what we might call the tyranny of the majority in democracies and this comes out of ancient democratic theory- a fear that majorities, even though they practice in a democratic system, may impose short term solutions that are highly destructive to society. In other words, there is an ancient and deep mistrust of the majority even if it expresses its voice in a democratic way. And therefore there must be constitutional, institutional protections for minorities. I think there are so many examples in history that show the stupidity of the majorities, the viciousness of majorities. We do not need to dwell on this terribly long but I just would say two examples familiar I think to most of you. Adolf Hitler was the product of a democratic process. There can be circumstances in which popular passions are aroused and brought to a point where they do extraordinary harm. Perhaps on a lesser scale but one of the most shameful periods in my own country's history, the US, again came under a period of very high stress, Pearl Harbour and the beginning of the World War II at least for the US where the US interned virtually every Japanese citizen, every US citizen of Japanese origin during the duration of the war. We learned later that we needed to have constitutional protections for that, for any minority so that even though with the popular will of the majority of Americans at the time, we needed to have that, the Japanese, at least the Japanese in the US did not have those protections. So I think one of our concerns that lead to our concern with pluralism and pluralist systems, is that the majority can and under stress often does make terrible mistakes.
Diversity and pluralism has been regarded more often as a threat to society than as a blessing and a source of strength. It is seen as a way to tear apart the fabric of a nation, or an empire or some kind of political unit. It is seen as the way that the enemy can enter your society and exploit the differences to their advantage. Therefore, it is often the case that political systems try to contain or suppress pluralism. And that again from one of a political, liberal persuasion, is abhorred and repulsive but it's simply been the general modus vivendi in most societies in the world. But it has been, I think prevalent for understandable reasons, in post-colonial society in the developing countries- those countries that have been subjected to foreign rule. I myself have been a student of the Arab world, of North Africa, and the Arab countries and throughout, scholars from those countries would say that friends, Britain and then in the later phase the US, has exploited our differences they created a kind of artificial sense of identity among different peoples, ethnic groups, religions in our societies in order to divide and rule, divide and conquer, maintain their colonial control. And therefore in order to build our nations as the way they should be, we cannot tolerate these differences. We must- we must build new identities that overcome these old identities.
And so I would say since the World War II, in many societies, those that are from minorities- they may be ethnic minorities, they may be religious minorities, they may hold different political views- they have been regarded as not only as dangerous but as, in some sense, traitors. As agents of powers, external powers, that want to dominate the local society. So it is an uphill battle to develop pluralist systems. And I take it as a great sign of encouragement that here in Turkey and here at Sabanci University, there seems to be a strong will to explore pluralist systems, understand how they function and how they can be an element of strength rather than perceived as an element of weakness. Thank you again for allowing me this opportunity to address you. It has been a great honour and good evening to you all.
Şevket Pamuk
Good evening dear guests.I will try to explain the topic of this year's Sakıp Sabancı International Research Awards, and present you with short introductions of the award-winning articles.
History has always been very important for our society. Influenced by our Ottoman past, we all try to associate the present with our past. Themes and emphases change from time to time, of course. We used to seek the roots of our underdevelopment in history; now we seek the roots of our identity or identities. And I wish to begin my speech with a series of questions linking the present with the past.
Why do we have certain values and social structures today? Does history consist purely of fine tales, or can we make sense of the present, if only slightly, by looking into history? Is the world being remade everyday, or do we take our social structures, values, culture and institutions from the past to a certain degree, and transfer them to the future? Finally, are absolute interruptions and chapters in history possible, or must we think of continuities as much as we think of interruptions? We live in a nation-state that replaced a great empire that lasted six hundred years. An empire and a nation-state are different; not only with respect to their political regimes, but to their institutions, laws and cultures.
Can this recent and dramatic transition have alleviated the influence of our past on our present? Although it is true that the Republic of Turkey signifies a radical hiatus from the Ottoman State, we realise with time that the transition process is much complex than imagined. The significance of continuities is becoming manifest in time, not only here, but in many societies that have experienced the transition from an empire to a nation-state after World War I in Europe and the Middle East. All these questions are very important in understanding the present and evaluating the significance of our history with its positives and negatives.
We are all products of our histories to a certain extent. We must have a better grasp of our past and our heritage when trying to make sense of the present. We have always regarded the Ottoman heritage with suspicion, even to the point of denying it for a while, but then, our attitude towards it began to change and evolve into curiosity. Today, some sublimate this heritage unquestioningly; but there are also some who adopt a more rational attitude and try to understand its strengths and weaknesses. This applies not only to us, but to neighbouring countries as well.
Balkan peoples have been a part of the Ottoman State for 500 years, and Middle Eastern peoples for 400 years. We are speaking of a significant heritage that reaches across a vast landscape.
For example, we are in daily touch with the Ottoman architecture through mosques, caravanserais, bridges, bazaars, fountains and baths. This heritage influences our aesthetical values and directs our contemporary architectural attitude. Needless to say, the Ottoman heritage is not limited to concrete edifices.
We must remember that the founders of the Republic, Ataturk and his friends, were brought up in educational institutions that were formed as part of the education movement of the 19th century; it was there that they met the ideas which would later constitute the Republic. In this and many other respects, the Republic was born of the Ottoman modernisation process. In short, our past lives in our social affairs, the values that lead the society daily, in habits and customs, in written rules and unwritten codes of conduct, and in styles of culture, politics and thought. Therefore, the decision to focus the Sakıp Sabancı International Research Award on Ottoman heritage for the past two years is extremely prudent.
The topic of last year's awards was "The Perception of Ottoman Heritage in the Balkans and the Middle East." This year's topic is "Ottoman Heritage in the Culture, Institutions and Values of Present Turkey." 41 researchers submitted essays to the competition, of whom 21 were from Turkey, and 20 from abroad. After a lengthy assessment period over the past months, the jury, of which I was a member, has decided to present awards to five essays. Although the award-winning essays will be the subject of detailed discussions in the seminar tomorrow, I believe that many of you will not have the chance to attend the seminar, and thus will try to make short introductions to these five essays.
Zoe Griffith's essay on calligraphy and calligraphists in the late Ottoman and Republican Turkey eras is one of the two articles receiving honourable mentions. In her essay, Griffith analyses the contribution of calligraphy and calligraphists to the development of a national identity in Turkey. Pointing out that calligraphy has always had a special relation with Islam in Turkey, the author emphasises that this art form has unavoidably developed with close ties to the Ottoman and Islamic past during the Republican era, and seeks the reason why this art form, closely tied to Islam in appearance, has maintained its existence in secular Turkey despite the alphabet reform. She mentions that calligraphy and calligraphists, with an implicit dissidence, acted as a bridge between the Republic's nation-state project and the Ottoman state. In this respect, she argues that 20th century calligraphy and calligraphists constitute another example of the rich past that survives to the present day, and add a historic dimension to the national identity shaped by the republic.
The keyword of one honourable mention was calligraphy. The keyword of the other is mesk. Denise Gill begins her essay on mesk and art with the Turkish expression, "No love makes no mesk," and the definition of mesk. In calligraphy and music, mesk points to the teaching and learning relation between the master and the apprentice that occurs in many dimensions, and includes the transference of the past to the future. Mesk has different meanings and connotations in present Turkey as well.
The author considers mesk not only for calligraphy and music practices, but as a concept that could be used in the creation of identities in the transition from Ottoman rule to the Republic. She asks what the expression "no love makes no mesk" and its various interpretations tell us about the Ottoman heritage behind the present Turkish identity beyond the music practices of classical Turkish music performers, and analyses the positions musicians place themselves through classical Turkish music practices, and the roles they play in the construction of identities in present Turkey.
Mesk recreates memory and history, and conveys the past to the present and the future. Mesk shows us how different interpretations of history and memory can remain vivid. Gill reaches the conclusion that the different interpretations of the word mesk and its practices reflect the diversity of the transference of Ottoman heritage to young generations, and conflicting interpretations.
The winner of the third prize, Olivier Bouquet's "Old Elites in a New Republic", analyses the reconversion of Ottoman bureaucratic families to Republican elites between 1909 and 1939. Bouquet argues that the careers of former prominent representations of the old order ended, and while the new order was founded on equality and meritocracy, Ottoman bureaucracy was not eliminated completely. The author argues that at least some of the children and grandchildren of the 19th century Ottoman bureaucracy were transitioned to the new order in Ankara as diplomats, professors, and even politicians, and that the old elites were able to maintain their old social positions even though the new Republic may have never openly accepted.
Bouquet shows that in what may be considered the final phase of this transition, the change to a multiparty system at the end of World War II, members of Ottoman families that were especially renowned in the periphery joined politics by becoming members of parliament of their hometowns. The author asserts that, in the process of founding a new state and subsequently a democracy, the Republican regime opposed the old Ottoman elites on the one hand, yet effectively integrated the children and grandchildren of the families to its new institutions on the other.
Maureen Jackson, winner of the second prize, examines the Jews who practiced Ottoman and Turkish classical music for centuries, and the social dimensions of the Turkish-Jewish music. Jackson begins her essay by questioning what young Jews, who perform historical music even in the decreasing Jewish population of Istanbul today, for example by singing Hebrew songs with classical Ottoman musical forms, may be telling us about minority communities from the Ottoman era to the present. The development of the relations between Ottoman Jewish music, the Jewish community, and the classical Ottoman music occurs in a multiethnic urban setting of the empire. In her essay, Jackson attempts to understand how the Jews entered interactions with Muslims and non-Muslim individuals.
Jackson perceives music as a social and collective process, and examines how Jews could contribute both to the religious music of their community, and the secular Ottoman music, as well as examining the social aspects of this process. She investigates how these forms of music were articulated, and so closely, to the artistic culture of the Ottoman period. In the 20th century, interest in the classical Ottoman music continues, as does the interest in Jewish music while the Jewish community in Turkey grows smaller. Jackson argues that this interest is a colourful and significant indicator that Ottoman heritage continues to be a topic of curiosity not only among Turks, but also among Jews.
First prize in the competition goes to Amy Singer and her work on philanthropy from the Ottomans to the present. According to Singer, one of the most prevailing customs continuing from the Ottomans to present Turkey is the inclination of private persons towards philanthropy. The most visible philanthropic efforts in every era have been those undertaken by the elites or the wealthy. However, Singer argues that both in the Ottoman period and today, philanthropy is not limited to the wealthy, but encompasses the entire society from the wealthy to the middle-class, and different ethnicities. In addition, as evidenced thoroughly by historical documents, philanthropy is not limited to men, and women are very active in such efforts. Singer elaborates her work with examples, may of which are from Istanbul, and provides important insight into the history of philanthropy, the legacy left by the Ottomans to the Republic, and the recent uptrend in philanthropic efforts.
Although Ottoman foundations may have been replaced by different structures in present Turkey, the responsibility to give to the society continues and intensifies in the fields of education, health and art. The growth of the wealthy and the middle classes through recent economic developments, as well as the emergence of strong philanthropy examples in Europe and especially beyond the Atlantic, in short, the onset of globalisation has led to a new philanthropic movement. Singer explains the strong historical roots of philanthropy in present Turkey, and the local and global influences that have brought philanthropy to a new level.
This institution, this select university where we have gathered tonight, is most certainly a leading example of the philanthropic tradition that carries forward from the Ottomans to the present-day Turkey. In conclusion, not just the five award-winning essays, but a great majority of the articles submitted to the competition provided us with multidimensional and rich perspectives of modern historiography and social sciences to Ottoman Heritage in the Culture, Institutions and Values of Present Turkey. Thanks to these valuable studies, I believe that we will be able to make sense of the complex Ottoman heritage in Turkey in a much richer perspective.
As a jury member, I have read these essays with pleasure, and learned many things.
I wish to express my thanks to all participants.
And I would like to thank you for listening to me.