Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Jan 14 2008

Identity and history (I)

by DOÐU ERGÝL

After a few year of high school education I came to believe that
history was a legend based on selected facts. With that reasoning,
"national history" was a fact based on selected legends.

Nevertheless, history as a collective experience or the impressions
thereof has a role in the constitution of an individual and of social
and cultural identities. History tells us who we are in contrast to
what we ought to be, which means loading history with ideology. And
all ideologies are spiritual arsenal or shields of contemporary
fights.
That is why the narrative attributed to history is so vital. We are
all chapters in the collective or grand national narrative that is
either our telling or th at is handed down to us by our elders as (if
it is) the sole correct story. In this sense we are the stories we
tell about ourselves. These stories may be true or false or a mixture
of both. But as long as we believe them and act as if they are the
reflections of truth, they have the power of influencing or even
guiding our lives, individually or collectively. In this way self
and/or collective deception is always close home.

It does not come to us scholars as a surprise that we sort,
categorize and periodize events that have happened in the past and
attach a meaning to them. So, who we are is vitally important to the
sorting and categorization process that we call "constructing the
narrative." However, this process ends up in a different
understanding of history that means emphasizing as well periodizing
some of those events. As we do so, some of the real or imaginary
phenomena become central and others are trivialized in "our" history.

This is often the case because history is generally written by
dominant groups or power holders in hindsight from their own time and
standpoint that validates their power, privilege or social order as
they see best. So we have a serious problem as to the author, or
better, "maker" of history. The second important problem is the fact
that history is a collective phenomenon that involves multiple
actors. But historiography may yield a particular narrative
glorifying only one of the actors because of the hegemony of that
actor in one particular time and geography. So all historical
narratives written or constructed by the excluded may be against the
dominant actor that has distorted their common history. If such a
thing happens, as it often does, common recollections turn into
particular collections of legitimizations and glorifications
shattering a common history and distorting the truth for all. The
"grand narrative" crumbles into particularistic and antagonistic
group stories full of hate and accusations.

Problem of particularism

Every group (people, nation, etc.) creates a procedure for the
memorialization of real or imagined facts. This is for keeping the
group (or its consciousness) "in perspective." The "unwanted" or the
unsavory are filtered, the reaming facts and deeds are afforded
"validity." So the concerned people/group can build a collective
identity enriched with emotions like belonging, allegiance,
dedication and sacrifice. The validity afforded to the historical
narrative provides a collective frame of reference that "marks the
land." The focal points or the highlights of the historical narrative
are both the victories and the traumas that makes the members of the
group value the present. So history is not only the depository of
past events, but a below the surface value scale that weighs and
gives meaning to the present.

It is in this context that our identities are formed and sustained.
If a historical narrative discriminates and excludes others who have
shared it, obviously there will be a heavy dose of antagonism and
aggressive feelings manifested when it is presented as the sole
truth. On this occasion, bringing differing/conflicting groups in
real-life situations is rather hard. The main reason for this is the
fact that such an effort will threaten each party’s collective
identity. The groups have a need to preserve their identity as being
separate — even as contrary — to their enemies’ identity.

Identity and the need for mourning

What is the way out then? To simplify a complex phenomenon, we may
say, "Bring closure through mourning" over the loss of people, land,
prestige and so on (crucial valuables) that make up a "trauma."
People invest considerable emotion into traumas because of the loss
of crucial valuables. Mourning becomes an important and integral part
of their identity. It may be equally informative to know that people
do not only mourn the loss of their "valuables" but also for the loss
of material or human elements that serve as the target of their hate:
the enemy, for example. The enemy becomes an integral part of group
identity especially if history is built on traumas.

Mourning occurs because the human mind can only deal with a traumatic
loss by emotionally accepting it. This is an internal (psychological)
process that builds bridges with the lost persons or material
valuables, like land. The mourning process comes to a healthy end
when the person or group acknowledges the loss and lays the lost
valuable to rest. In fact this process is a mechanism whereby the
individual or the group rests its mind over the agony of loss. Only
then the lost valuables (persons or objects) become "futureless,"
meaning they do not keep the mind and the soul of the grieving person
or group captive any more. When completed, the mourning process
allows the initiation of adaptive liberation from old burdens of
history that no more cater for psychological needs. The image of a
lost person or thing thus becomes a "memory" and we become ready to
accept changes or losses. From then on persons and groups can invest
into new persons or things that will be part of their post-mourning
identity.

On the other hand the mourning process may become complicated because
the person or group cannot get over its agony of lost valuables. In
this instance a mourner cannot accept an apology from another person
or group that is perceived as the cause of its loss. The anger and
hostility that the mourner harbors are reinforced with a sense of
victimization that becomes part of her/his identity as time goes by.
To accept a perpetrator’s apology means to alter the post-traumatic
identity of the mourner, which itself will be a new loss. So it is
very hard to accept apologies for those who have not concluded their
mourning or who do not want to do so. The humiliation associated with
the trauma and ensuing loss prevents the mourner from completing the
process and forgiving the perpetrator.

Such "emotional freezing" in time exhibits itself in political
ideologies. This happens especially when losses are caused
deliberately by others. The vicious circle can only be broken through
a reconciliation process with the perpetrator or by membership to
comprehensive (international) organizations that could alleviate the
security anxiety of the victim. For example, since Greece’s
membership in the European Union, its investment in anti-Turkish
ideology has been reduced considerably. However, this is not so with
the Serbians and Armenians, who have assimilated victimhood into
their group identity as a response to their past losses which they
still mourn for.

If a group that is fundamentally traumatized by others (who have
become the "enemy" despite a long life together) cannot conclude its
mourning in an adaptive way, it cannot successfully reverse
helplessness and humiliation. In this instance, the unfinished task
of mourning leads to "transgenerational transmission" and is passed
on from one generation to the other.

The person or group becomes a perennial mourner like the Shiites and
the Jews. They begin to produce antagonistic ideologies and
revengeful strategies against the perpetrator, its heirs or its
symbolic substitutes. The "enemy" (object/subject of hate) becomes an
integral part of their collective identity. Perennial mourners on the
whole do not wish to give up the hope of recovering what has been
lost and hatred becomes the fuel of their "long wait" in history.
This is how they cope with the helplessness and humiliation suffered
during or because of the massive trauma they have undergone. But
then, they cannot go through a "normal" mourning process. We see this
happen to people living during wars and in war-like conditions.

14.01.2008