Talking Turkey: A Conversation with Elif Shafak
By Khatchig Mouradian
The Armenian Weekly
September 23, 2006
On October 21, a Turkish court acquitted best-selling author Elif
Shafak for `insulting Turkishness,’ citing a lack of evidence. An
outspoken critic of Turkey’s official policy of denial of the
massacres of 1915, Shafak faced 3 years in jail over quotes from her
recent novel `Baba ve Pic.’ Below is an interview conducted with
Shafak earlier this year. Excerpts from this interview have appeared
in an article published on ZNet. The Armenian translation of this
interview has appeared in Aztag.
Khatchig Mouradian: Tell me about how you became interested in the
Armenian issue. I understand that your mother was a Turkish diplomat
in Europe in the `80s, Turkish diplomats were being targeted¦
Elif Shafak: That’s correct. I was raised by a single mother, and I
think this had a role in my worldview. We were in Madrid, Spain, at
the time when ASALA [Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of
Armenia] started targeting Turkish diplomats.
KM: So, in your mind, the word `Armenian’ was associated with people
trying to kill diplomats for some reason.
ES: Yes, the equivalent of the word `Armenian’ was `a terrorist who
wants to kill my mother.’
KM: And how did this definition of the word `Armenian’ evolve as the
years passed?
ES: I have to say, I am against all sorts of terrorist activity,
whatever the motivation. So I have always remained against the
activities of ASALA. However, I did not become nationalist and
pro-state like most children of diplomats tend to become. Perhaps this
is because I have always been `curious,’ interested in asking the
simplest question: Why? Why was there so much rage?
So, after that emotional genesis, I started to read, and the more I
read about 1915 the more curious I became. But it was especially after
coming to the USA that I started to fully concentrate on this subject
and further my research.
I was always fortunate enough to have good friends who shared their
family histories with me. I think oral stories and microhistories are
as important as written documents when tracing back a nation’s
history.
KM: What was your mother’s reaction when she saw you get involved in
the Armenian issue?
ES: My mother is worried. She respects my mind and heart, and yet she
is extremely worried that I will be prosecuted, harassed or taken to
court because of my views. She is supportive and, at the same time,
keeps telling me `to be careful.’
KM: You give a great deal of importance to oral histories. Much has
been recorded and written about the Armenian survivors’the
grandmothers and grandfathers of the current generation. What would
the grandparents of the people living in Turkey today have to say?
What importance does their account have in bringing about awareness in
Turkey?
ES: I think grandmothers can play an extremely important role, which
has not been fully acknowledged by either side yet. As you know, there
were hundreds and thousands of Armenian girls orphaned after
1915. Many of them stayed in Turkey, where they were converted to
Islam and Turkified. Many people have Armenian grandmothers but they
have no idea; it is important to bring out those stories both out of
respect for those women and also because they can blur the nationalist
boundaries and bridge the gap.
Nationalist Turks who are angry at `outsider’ scholars might listen
when they hear the same story from their own grandmothers, from the
`inside.’
KM: Even a few years ago, it would have been unthinkable to speak so
openly in Turkey about Islamized Armenians, let alone publish books or
write articles on the subject. Can you speak a bit about the changes
Turkey has undergone in the past decade?
ES: There are very important changes underway in Turkey. Sometimes, in
the West, Turkey looks more black-and-white than it really is. But the
fact is, Turkey’s civil society is multifaceted and very
dynamic. Especially over the past two decades, there have been
fundamental transformations. The Armenian Conference in Istanbul (in
2005) was the outcome of such a process. During those days, one major
newspaper had the headline: `They even uttered `the G word’ but the
world has still not come to a stop.’ Another newspaper said: `A big
taboo is shattered.’ After the conference, public debates have not
ceased; people are discussing this subject like they never did
before. The problem is that the bigger the change, the deeper the
panic of those who want to preserve the status quo.
KM: But the current changes are often interpreted as part and parcel
of a greater trend to change Turkey, so that it aligns itself with the
EU. How has the prospect of EU membership facilitated this process?
Would a conference like the Istanbul conference have taken place
otherwise?
ES: Turkey’s bid to join the EU is an important process for
progressive forces both within and outside the country. I am a big
supporter of this process and I want Turkey to become part of the
EU. The whole process will definitely reinforce democracy, human
rights and minority rights in the country. It will diminish the role
of the state apparatus and, most importantly, the shadow of the
military in the political arena.
KM: What allows an accomplished academic/writer to venture into a
realm that is taboo in her country? I mean, you receive hate mail and
threats. Many intellectuals would rather conform to the status quo, or
at least try to change it gradually. What made you become so committed
to go against the flow?
ES: I am a storyteller. If I cannot `feel’ other people’s pain and
grief, I better quit what I am doing. So there is an emotional aspect
for me, in that I have always felt connected to those pushed to the
margins and silenced rather than those at the center. This is the
pattern in each and every one of my novels; I deal with Turkish
society’s underbelly.
I also have to say that, for me, 1915 is not an isolated case in
itself. In other words, the recognition of 1915 is connected to my
love for democracy and human rights. I follow the Eastern thinker Ibn
Khaldoun in his premise that societies have a life cycle’they are
born, they pass a childhood phase, they become older, etc. Turkish
society will never be able to become mature if it cannot come to grips
with its past. Collective amnesia generates new sorts of atrocities
and violations. I think memory is a responsibility. It is the outcome
of my conscience as much as an intellectual choice.
KM: Your latest novel, The Bastard of Istanbul, deals with the
Armenian issue. What are the main messages you want to convey through
that novel to the reader?
ES: the novel is highly critical of the sexist and nationalist fabric
of Turkish society. It is the story of four generations of women in
Istanbul. At some point their stories converge with the story of an
Armenian woman, and thereby an Armenian-American family. I have used
this family in San Francisco and the family in Istanbul as
mirrors. Basically, the novel testifies to the struggle of amnesia and
memory. It deals with painful pasts, both at the individual and
collective level.
KM: I am sure you encounter many Armenians who ask you questions; it
is a cathartic experience for an Armenian to speak to a person of
Turkish origin who can show understanding of the pain suffered by
their grandparents. How do you usually respond?
ES: I am always surprised by the tone of `gratitude’ that I encounter
in the e-mails and letters I receive from Armenians in the Diaspora. I
have received deeply inspiring, moving feedback. Sometimes they start
by saying, `I have never wanted to thank a Turk before…’ Or I
receive e-mails where the subject is, `Never written to a Turk
before…’
More and more Armenians have started to attend my readings and
lectures, and almost always there is slight tension with the Turks in
the room, but also very interesting debates are taking place. For me
what really matters is to open the channels of dialogue. I truly
believe we have so much to learn from one another.
But there is one more thing I’d like to add. Sometimes, Armenians come
to me and say: `You criticize all sorts of nationalism, but Armenian
nationalism is different than Turkish nationalism.’ I respect the
differences. However, for me, all sorts of nationalist ideologies end
up in the same place. I do not believe that the solution to one form
of nationalism is another nationalism. In other words, I do not
believe that Turkish nationalism can be counterbalanced by Armenian
nationalism or vice versa. I think what we truly need is a
cosmopolitan, multicultural democratic approach that eventually
challenges all sorts of nationalist and religious boundaries.
KM: I would like us to speak a bit about the issue of identity. How is
Turkish identity perceived in Turkey, and how should that be
challenged?
ES: `Turkishness’ is said to be a supra-identity that covers all sorts
of ethnicities and minorities. The Kemalists claimed that as long as
you say aloud that you are a Turk, it is enough. Hence, Turkish
nationalism is very different than, for instance, German nationalism,
where race is more important. In Turkey, the French model is
closer. We had a policy of cultural assimilation. We Turkified the
culture, we Turkified the people and we Turkified the language.
I am one of the few authors who openly refuses to accept the
Turkificiation of the language. I do not use `pure’ Turkish; I bring
back the words that the Kemalist reformists took out of our language,
which is why they are very angry and bitter towards my novels. They
accuse me of betraying the national projects. Of course, culture
building was such an important task for the Turkish reformist elite.
KM: And as you often cite, a lot was lost during this process of
Turkification. Would you agree that embracing the past, with it
`bruises’ and `beauties,’ would give Turkey its cosmopolitan image?
ES: Embracing the past both with its beauties and bruises will give us
a sense of continuity, first of all. Today we are a nation built on
rupture. How can you have a solid foundation when there is a rupture?
Many Kemalists wanted to start history in 1923, the day they came to
power. When there is continuity, knowledge can flow from one
generation to another. You can become more mature and derive lessons
from your mistakes.
Turkey’s transition to a modern nation-state has been a transition
from a multiethnic, multilingual past to a supposedly homogeneous
nation-state. Now it is time to enter a third stage: recognizing the
losses and starting to appreciate cosmopolitanism again.
KM: Nationalists, however, would argue that facing the past,
especially the bruises’for instance, recognizing the Armenian
Genocide’would shake the foundations of Turkey. What’s your take on
that?
ES: If we had been able to face the atrocities committed against the
Armenian minority, it would have been more difficult for the Turkish
state to commit atrocities against the Kurds. If we had been able to
openly discuss the violations against human rights after each coup
d’etat, it would have been more difficult to repeat those. A society
based on amnesia cannot have a mature democracy.
KM: Some call Noam Chomsky `America’s most useful citizen.’ However,
he is often considered a person who is anti-U.S., when, in fact, he
speaks for a better U.S. and a better world. In your own experience,
what do you feel when you are called an enemy of Turkey?
ES: The nationalist discourse in Turkey, just like the Republican
discourse in the USA, thinks that if you are criticizing your
government, you do not like your nation. This is a lie. Only and only
if you care about something will you reflect upon it, give it further
thought. I care about Turkey. It hurts me to be accused of `hating my
country.’ There are essays and editorials in the Turkish media
attacking me and calling me a `so-called `Turk.” It is so
ironic. They are used to saying `so-called `Armenian Genocide.” Now,
they are also saying `so-called `Turks.”
KM: As someone who has lived both in Turkey and abroad, who has
studied Turkey’s past, and who is living in its present and actively
working for its future, what does Turkey mean to you?
ES: This is a difficult question. I feel connected to so many things
in Turkey, especially in Istanbul. The city, the customs of women, the
enchanted world of superstitions, my grandmother’s almost magical
cosmos, my mother’s humanism, and the warmth and sincerity of the
people in general. All these are so dear to me. At the same time, I
feel no connection whatsoever to its main ideology, its state
structure and army.
I think there are two undercurrents in Turkey, both of which are very
old. One is nationalist, exclusivist, xenophobic and reactionary. The
other is cosmopolitan, Sufi, humanist, embracing. It is the second
tide that I feel connected to.
KM: What is the Turkey that you would like to see in 2015?
ES: A Turkey that is part of the EU. A Turkey where women do not get
killed on the basis of `family honor.’ A Turkey where there is no
gender discrimination, no violations against minorities. A Turkey that
is not xenophobic, homophobic, and where each and every individual is
treated as valuably as the reflection of the Jamal side of God, its
beauty.