Interwar Era: Nationalism and Independence
Gelvin, 205-219, 220-229
Alev Çinar "National History as a Contested Site: The Conquest of Istanbul and Islamist Negotiations of the Nation," Comparative Studies in Society and History 43, (2001), 364-391.
Recommended Reading:
Arang Keshavarzian, “Turban or Hat, Seminarian or Soldier: State Building and Clergy Building in Reza Shah’s Iran,” Journal of Church and State 45,1 (Winter 2003), 81-112.
***
Prompts for Reading Responses
Pick one of the following prompts:
What are the basic assumptions (or claims) of nationalism, and why would a “founding moment” be crucial for such claims? Lay out the argument put forth by Alev Cinar and discuss how nationalism constitutes a “performative site.” How does the performance of the “Conquest of Istanbul Day” represent a performance of national identity that is at odds with the one put forth by Mustafa Ataturk Kemal?
Or…
What are the basic assumptions (or claims) of nationalism and what does Alev Cinar mean when she argues that the writing of national history necessarily involves “repressions and recreations”? How were the state-building projects of both Reza Khan and Mustafa Ataturk Kemal both creative (in constituting the singular notion of “one state = one nation = one history) as well as destructive?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteResponse to prompt #1
ReplyDeleteNationalism revolves around a national identity, which shapes a nation’s politics and is used to advance political agendas. Gelvin outlines five basic “assumptions” of nationalism, beliefs about how human society should be structured. First, humanity is “naturally divided into smaller units, or nations” (Gelvin, 221) and all citizens of a nation have certain characteristics, including traditions and linguistic, ethnic, or religious ones, in common. Second, these basic characteristics remain static throughout time. Third, the population has a special connection to a particular piece of land where its ancestors lived and thrived. Fourth, the state must promote a “common interest” that unites a nation’s population. Finally, only self-government can ensure the “common interest” will be protected.
Nationalist movements seek to construct identities of targeted populations by framing history to fit a desired identity using strategic selection of which events to ascribe importance to. The selection of an inherently significant and definitional “founding moment” supports these basic “assumptions” of nationalism in two ways. First, it creates a period of time, or continuum lasting throughout changes in time during which an “essential quality” (Cinar, 366) or, “characteristic” (Gelvin 221)—be it racial, ethnic, linguistic, or religious—can be said to have existed. Once a founding moment has been established, historical events can be united by virtue of their common placement on this continuum people use as a reference when thinking about history. Second, it is strategically chosen to foster a desired narrative, one of the state as a “savior” devoted to protecting the “common interest” thus evoking an emotional connection to the narrative. Naturally, the “founders” who did the saving are inherently glorified, and the immediate past demonized. In the case of Turkey, official secular Turkish nationalist discourse names October 29, 1923, the day the first president of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal was elected and the Grand National Assembly declared Turkey a state as its “founding moment” because the events were “homogenously assembled around the principles of secularism and Turkish nationalism” (Cinar, 373), fitting the identity the state wished to espouse. Further, Kemal had been a military commander who became a national hero after leading the grueling Battle of Gallipoli that kept the European entente powers out of the Ottoman Empire during World War I, before leading a two-year war that expelled foreign forces from Anatolia. He called himself “Ataturk,” meaning “father of the Turks.”
Response to prompt I, Part II
ReplyDeleteCinar discusses nationalism as a “performative site” (372), arguing that nationalism exists in the form of competing identities that are not absolute, but rather “performances” or, constructs designed to influence people—often through celebratory reenactments of events—dubbing nationalist identities “ideologically-motivated reconstructions of time” (367). While national histories are framed, they are not inaccurate, though they remain controversial because of course they claim to be incontestable and can therefore compete by ascribing importance to events other than those chosen by competitors. Cinar focuses on the competition between two national identities in Turkey: an Islamic national identity espoused by groups like the Refah Party, a political party, and the state-endorsed secular one put forth by Kemal, though notably, Kemal also distanced Turkish identity from Islam by making western-inspired changes, such as changing the official alphabet from Arabic to one closely resembling the Latin one and the calendar from the Islamic to the western. These competing national identities clash because they espouse different political ideologies, with national identity as the playing field upon which secularism, or, separation of church and state and Islamism, unity of Islam and state, compete to gain political influence. Those propagating an Islamic national identity seek to frame history and integrate Islam into the identities of Turkish citizens through promotion of annual celebrations like “Conquest of Istanbul Day,” which commemorates May 29, 1453 when Mehmet II conquered Constantinople to found the Islamic Ottoman Empire. Celebrations involve dramatic and emotional reenactments of the conquest with demands to make the day a national holiday. Significantly, during the 1996 celebration reenactments were dramatically interrupted when the call to prayer was sent over the event loudspeakers. Performers and spectators alike prayed together on the field where the reenactments occurred, uniting Islam with a “performance of identity” (378) and consequently unifying many identities including and class and gender.
Lynn
ReplyDeleteResponse to prompt 1, part 1
There are five basic claims of nationalism – first, that mankind is naturally divided into smaller units; second, that these units can be identified by certain commonalities such as language, religion, race, and history; third, that such characteristics are time-enduring; fourth, that people have a special relationship to some piece of land in which their ancestors first emerged; and lastly, that nations have a common interest that can only be pursued and protected via self-government (Gelvin, 2011, p.209). This makes a “founding moment” (Cinar, 2001) crucial for a few reasons. Firstly, the establishment of a turning point in history restructures time linearly, hence orientating the nation’s future and past around a single, undisputed moment in time. This is important in both instituting a common historical experience and ensuring that this shared memory is constantly instilled into the citizens. Secondly, it legitimises the state as a necessary agent in achieving the aims and interests of the nation. (Cinar, 2001, p.368).
However, the national narrative is never final as it almost always has space for alternative approaches. Nationalism can hence be understood as a “performative site” where contending identities “perform” and to some extent, compete in the national discourse (Cinar, 2001, p.373). While the state might have an advantage in propagating the official preferred rhetoric, it is never uncontested. The deliberate act of creating and sustaining a public memory invades into the private realm of the human mind and spirit – celebrations of “founding moments” forces public participation and to a large degree, invokes rigour into the national experience, making it especially personal and yet collective at the same time. Moreover, experiences are never universal and any rhetoric, if built around certain exclusive traits, will leave out underprivileged or exploited groups. Thus, official slants will always be accompanied by contestations, criticisms and challenges (Cinar, 2001, p.372), and it is precisely this mix and articulation that defines the possibility of nationalism.
Lynn
ReplyDeleteResponse to prompt 1, part 2
An interesting example is the celebration of the “Conquest of Istanbul Day” in Turkey, which is separate from the official commemorative day. The brand of nationalism accompanying the celebration is distinct from the official rhetoric proposed by Kemal in two ways. Firstly, it has an outright Islamic and Ottoman slant, two features that are purposefully rejected and concealed by Kemal. The May 29 celebrations both glorify the Ottoman past and link the success of the conquest to a prophecy made by Muslim prophet Mohammed (Cinar, 2001, p.365). This is significant because it embodies, in direct opposition to the official narrative, a non-secular Islamic spirit, with the seeds of civilisation centred in Istanbul instead of the present-day capital, Ankara. Additionally, the act of mass and collective prayers as part of the celebrations serves as a powerful image and activity in conveying an Islamic agenda, made more significant when contrasted against the strictly secular government. This event is vital because it seeks to speak of nationalist, not merely cultural or religious, goals. For instance, the Turkish flag is raised as a sign of victory, framing the performance as a national moment (Cinar, 2001, p.377), and hence attempting to re-conceive nationalism. Equally importantly is the benefit of a religious platform that allowed for boundaries to be transcended in a way that the modern state cannot. Social boundaries such as performers, spectators and the elites are momentarily disregarded as they all gather for prayers.
Secondly, the roots of Turkish nationalism are severely challenged. Accompanying the celebration of this day is the re-thinking of Turkish roots. For example, Islamic activists are ready to point out that the National Anthem was written by a devout Muslim, implying that the very foundations of nationalism today lie not in a secularist-Western discourse but an Ottoman-Islamic culture (Cinar, 2001, p.383). Moreover, as its name suggest, this commemorative day is inherently tied to Istanbul as the origin or centre of identity, with a current need for salvation from western penetration. This can be traced back more than five centuries before the inception of the Republic, again challenging the time-narrative of Turkish roots.
In all, through performances aimed at constructing an Ottoman-Islamic identity and the victimisation of Istanbul, it poses a serious challenge confronting the attempts by Kemal on a modern-secularist identity.
Ali,
ReplyDeleteResponse to prompt 1.1
The Conquest of Istanbul: Challenges to Notions of Nationalism and Commemoration Nationalism is an essential component that defines the identity of nations. It is through the establishment of an identity that is derived from collective histories allow people to connect with one another. In the article of Alev Cinar, he gives an interesting take to understanding the role of alternative histories and how the commemoration of the Conquest of Istanbul challenges the conventional perspective of Turkish nationalism. Arguably, the arguments put forward by Cinar emphasize the notion of ‘founding moment’ as it relates to nationalism, delineate the factors that make nationalism a peformative site, and detail the implications of the Conquest of Istanbul celebration in challenging the conventions put forth by the Turkish Republic.
One of the essential arguments put forward by Cinar in understanding the approach taken by the Turkish state looks into the notions of nationalism. Specifically, the foundation expounds on the conditions that shaped the ‘founding moment’. An essential component is the creation of a singular time frame that connect people together and showcases features that are “traceable, continuous, and enduring” (Cinar 367). Another feature is the objectifying and naturalizing history. This is the process where the events that took place establish truths and allow connections with the public. In addition, nationalism involves inscribing the establishment of nationhood within the historical event. Altogether, these facets allow the Republic of Turkey to establish its legitimacy, provide a singular story that highlighted its independence and create national identity.
Equally significant is the assertion of Cinar on how nationalism constitutes the depiction of a performative site. The focus takes into consideration not just the establishment of a singular history but also the continued commemoration and celebration of such event. Allowing commemoration to take place allows the inscription of the historical event to public life and shape public memory (Cinar 371). Celebrations also help shape communities to rekindle past events and recognize its value in shaping the benefits made available today. In addition, practicing commemoration allows time to become nationalized. Cinar argues “these days of national significance become constitutive elements in the routine of everyday life, and structure its time on a national basis” (372). All these characteristics of commemoration allow the Turkish republic to emphasize on its own legitimate role in telling history. At the same time, it also gives a good direction on how to understand the government’s continued unwillingness to recognize the Conquest of Istanbul as a significant performative site that affirms the Republic’s history.
Ali,
ReplyDeleteResponse to prompt 1.2
Lastly, the performance during the Conquest of Istanbul Day challenges the conventions put forth by the Turkish republic. It is due to the event’s attempt to offer an alternative take to the ‘founding moment’ established by Mustafa Ataturk Kemal in October 29, 1923. Specifically, Cinar contends “the designation of this date as the founding moment of the modern republic has not only served to constitute the national time in which the Turkish nation was inscribed, but also to establish the new Turkish state as the agent of this inscription and the author of this new history” (388). The unwillingness of the Turkish government to legitimize the event as a public holiday represents its commitment in preserving a national memory that aligns with a singular timeline for the development of its national identity. The May 29 commemoration is therefore considered an alternative national time and given limited attention by the state.
Overall, the context of national identity in Turkey continues to prescribe to the history defined by the Turkish Republic in October 29. The practice of commemorating the Conquest of Istanbul is an alternative take that challenges the singular form of history identified by the state. Since the features and history of the event does not coincide with the singular history and national identity established by Mustafa Kemal, the May 29 event is nothing more than an alternative history that challenges mainstream practices and a practice that does not warrant national significance.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Prompt 2:
ReplyDeleteNationalism is composed of 5 basic claims on human nature: the division of humanity into smaller nations, distinctions in those nations that make them unique, long-lasting distinctions that endures a grand portion of time, that citizens have a bond with the land that their forefathers lived on, and that the people of these nations self-govern for the sake of a common interest (Gelvin, 2016, pg. 221). Cinar argues that writing national history requires "repressions and recreations" because of the serious changes in the nationality of a country and it's instability (Cinar, 2001, pg. 373). For example, there is a vast amount of differences between the Ottoman Empire and Ataturk's Turkey. And such massive changes are present for a reason, as nations make crucial decisions on whether or not to stay with tradition or modernize. It's like the history of Germany, when it became the German Empire, which became the Weimar Republic, then that transformed into Nazi Germany, which split into East and West Germany, until we have the modern Germany we know today. The Ottoman Empire focused on expanding it's borders and remaining an Islamic empire, whilst Ataturk sought to unify the Turkish people and modernize the nation to be on par with stronger nations. But by associating the modern Turkey as the national successor to the Ottomans, it establishes a stronger national history and thus increasing nationalism among the Turks (Cinar, 2001, pg. 376). Both Iran and Turkey pursued "westernization" in order to craft a definitive state for their respective people. For Turkey, it was successful, as they could distinguish their past accomplishments as successes because of the Turkish people, not the Ottoman Empire, such as the conquest of Constantinople from the Byzantine Empire (Cinar, 2001, pg. 380). Even when religious aspects from the Ottoman era were suppressed due to Ataturk's policies, the Turkish people still connected those days and thus could bind to the modern Turkey. But this was far less successful in Iran, because the Persian government could not unite the people without the religious clergy, thus splitting the concepts of 'state' and 'society' (Keshavarzian, 2003, pg. 85). Shiism was dominant in Iranian society and while Reza Khan did successfully utilize the clergy to unite Iran, this was not continued after he was overthrown by the Allies, especially within the later reign of Shah Pahlavi. The people of Iran eventually found themselves more influenced by the Iranian clergy, because they felt so disenchanted by the Iranian monarchy's incorporation of 'westernization' in Iran without connecting it to the people. Ataturk successfully created a state for the Turkish people to still call their ancestor's land, whilst Reza Khan could not prevent his created state from succumbing to decline after his removal.