Ayda Bir
Ben bir kavanoz turşu muyum ki
Rafa kaldırılıp bırakılayım
Sıkıcı bir kitap mıyım
Yatağın altında kaybolayım
Olsa olsa şeftali olabilirim
Olgunlaşıp çürümüş
Ya da bir televizyon programı
Tekrarım asla yokmuş
Sen beni hiç arama
Ben seni ararım ayda bir
Ayda bir gördüklerimden
Biri olduğunda.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
Ya dışındasındır çemberin
Ya da içinde yer alacaksın
Kendin içindeyken
Kafan dışındaysa:
Çaresi yok kardeşim
Her akşam böyle içip kederlenip
Mutsuz olacaksın.
Meyhane masalarında kahrolacaksın
Şiirlerle şarkılarla
Kendini avutacaksın.
Ya dışındasındır çemberin
Ya da içinde yer alacaksın
Murathan Mungan
Çember
Afrikalı kadınların boyunlarındaki halkalar gibi - herkes bir sürü çemberin içinde, seçtiğimiz, seçmediğimiz. Her çemberin, her düzenin kuralları var. İnsanın bu kurallara uymaya devam edebilmesi için, yaptığı işin önemli olduğuna, içinde bulunduğu düzenin anlamlı olduğuna inanması gerek. Bu inancın sürekli beslenmesi gerek. İnsan içinde bulunduğu çembere inancını kaybettiğinde, artık ancak zorunluluklar, menfaatler ve korku onu o düzenin içinde tutabilir.
Hepimizin içinde seçmeden bulunduğu çember, bu zaman. Eskiden normal sayılan davranışlar, değerler, varsayımlar artık geçersiz. Şimdi yeni korkularımız, alışkanlıklarımız, beklentilerimiz var. Beğensek de beğenmesek de pek çok insan kendini bu zamanın akışına kaptırmış, bu zamanın kurallarıyla yaşıyor, bu da bizi aynı kurallara göre yaşamaya mecbur bırakıyor. Sonra içine doğduğumuz, büyüdüğümüz aile. Onun da kuralları var. İçine doğduğumuz, büyüdüğümüz ülke. Cinsiyetimiz. Tüm bunları miras almışız. Doğanın, atalarımızın, dedelerimizin, ninelerimizin yıllar yılı yaşayarak, karışarak, çalışarak, savaşarak oluşturduğu bir düzenin, bir zamanın içine doğmuşuz. Bu çemberlerden tamamen çıkmak, onları geride bırakmak, onlar yokmuş gibi yaşamak mümkün mü? Bu mümkün değil. Ancak bunların içinden çıkamıyor olmak, böyle yaşamaktan mutlu olduğumuz anlamına gelmiyor. Peki insan hep içinde bulunduğu çembere uyum sağlamak zorunda mı? İçinde bulunduğu çemberden memnun değilse insan, onu değiştirmeye çalışamaz mı? Yani hem bazı taraflarını sevmemek, hem terketmemek, terkedememek?
Bazen insanın içinde bulunduğu çembere uyum sağlamak için öyle ödünler vermesi gerekir ki, insan ancak kendine ihanet ederek, yalan söyleyerek, kim olduğunu saklayarak, görünmez olarak o çembere uyabilir. İnsan kendine ihanet etmek istemiyorsa, ya o çemberi bırakıp gitmesi, ya da çemberin içinde kalıp savaşması gerekir. Ama bazen bir halkayı çıkarıp atmak, terketmek de kendine ihanet etmektir, özünün bir parçasından vazgeçmektir. İnsan bırakıp giderse başını dik tutamayabilir. Zaten zamanlar, ülkeler, aileler bu sevmediği halde terkedemeyenler sayesinde değişir.
Bir insanın hayatta edebileceği en büyük kötülük, doğasına aykırı davranmak. Ama insanın kendini tanıması, ne yapmak istediğini, ne yapabileceğini anlayabilmesi de o kadar kolay bir şey değil. Bazen aslında ne yapmak istediğimizi kendimize itiraf etmemiz yıllar alır. İnsanın bir şeyi, bir kimseyi, bir işi ya da bir şehri kendini ona kendini kaptırabilecek kadar, adayabilecek kadar, onun arkasında durabilecek kadar önemli görmesi, sevmesi ne büyük cesaret. Bir halkayı bile isteye boynuna geçirmesi. Yapılması gereken bu diye değil, zorunluluktan değil, gerçekten isteyerek. İnsan bunu yaptığında, aslında kendisiyle yüzleşmiş olur, sınırlarıyla, kusurlarıyla. Der ki, ben bu işin, bu insanın arkasında duruyorum, bu iş, bu insan bana layıktır, benim dengimdir. Onun kusurları benim kusurlarımdır. Ben buyum. Eleştirilmesi gerekenler kendileri olanlar değil asla, kendini görmezden gelip, başkalarının amaçlarını kendilerininmiş gibi edinenler. Kendini unutanlar, kabul edilmek, onaylanmak uğruna kendi gibi davranmayanlar. Sorgusuz sualsiz içine doğduğu çembere uyum sağlayanlar, kendilerine, hayatlarına yazık edenler. Başkalarının halkalarını boyunlarına geçirenler. Böyleleri kendilerini avutmaya, oyalamaya, tatminsizliklerini unutmaya çalışırlar, şiirlerle, şarkılarla, hayallerle. İnandıkları işleri yapanların, inanarak bir şeyler üretenlerin ürünlerini izlerler ancak, onlara hayran olur, kendilerini onlarda bulurlar.
Ama biz yine de insanların fikirlerine çok değer veriyoruz. İstiyoruz ki yaşam tarzımız, seçimlerimiz onaylansın, fikirlerimiz kabul görsün, insanların fikrini değiştirsin, ürünlerimiz beğenilsin, alıcı bulsun. Yaşam tarzımızın taklitçisi, fikirlerimizin takipçisi, ürünlerimizin alıcısı ne kadar çok olursa, biz kendimizi o kadar değerli, o kadar güçlü hissedeceğiz. Eğer düşüncelerimizi, yeteneğimizi, seçimlerimizi onaylayan kimse olmasa, kendimize, anlamlı bulduğumuz her şeye inancımız çok çabuk tükenebilir. İnsan ne kadar çok kişiyi ikna ederse, o kadar güç kazanır.
Bazı insanların, ürünlerin büyük başarı kazanması, diğerlerininse bunu başaramaması insanda bazı insanların, onların ürünlerinin daha değerli, anlamlı olduğu kanısı uyandırıyor. Sanki o zamanın, o yerin mutlak bir gerçekliği varmış ve bu insanlar onu anlamaya herkesten daha çok yaklaşmışlar. Onu anlattıklarında dinleyenler tanıyorlar her gün görüp, içinde yaşayıp farketmedikleri gerçeği, şaşırıp gülümsüyorlar. Tarifini gördüklerinde gerçeği, gerçeği gördüklerinde tarifini hatırlıyorlar. Sanki mutlak bir güzellik varmış, pek çok insanın duyunca, görünce, hissedince tanıdığı. Bazen bir şarkı, bir şiir pek çok insanın içinde bir yere dokunuyor. Aşık olmanın gerçeği, kadın olmanın gerçeği, şu anda yaşamanın, Türk olmanın, İstanbul'u sevmenin gerçeği. Bu da hepimizin içinde aynı şeylerin olduğunu göstermez mi, benzer tecrübelerin anılarını, tortularını taşıdığımızı, birbirimize benzediğimizi? Belki de hepimizin içinde gerçeğin, Tanrı'nın bir parçası var, saf bir zerrecik, kendi gibi bir zerrecik gördüğünde onu tanıyor, hatırlıyor. Eğer böyle mutlak bir gerçeklik varsa, buna ulaşmanın yolu insanın samimi ve dürüst olmasıdır herhalde, en başta da kendisine.
Peki bir fikir diğerinden değerli mi? Gerçeği kendi dünya görüşünün, içinde bulunduğu çemberin, kendine miras kalan ve o ana kadar oluşturduğu fikirlerin merceğiyle değil, olduğu gibi görmeye çalışan, düşünen, yeni gördüklerine, farkettiklerine göre fikrini değiştirmeye hazır, neyin doğru, neyin yanlış olduğuna böyle karar veren birinin fikirleri, diğerlerinden daha değerli olmalı. Böyle bir gerçek var mı, varsa da bilinebilir mi? Bence bizim inanmak istediğimizden çok daha karmaşık, dinamik, tutarsız da olsa, bir gerçeklik var. Onu bütün haksızlıklarıyla, tutarsızlıklarıyla, karmaşıklığıyla anlamaya çalışmak, tüm zorluğuna ve rahatsızlığına rağmen değerli bir çaba. Başımıza ne geliyorsa sonuçlarını bilemediğimiz, bilmeye çalışmadığımız, neleri etkilediğini, nelerden etkilendiğini anlamadığımız şeyleri yapmaya devam etmemizden gelmiyor mu? Başımıza bu ekonomik krizi böyle sarmadık mı? Herkes işini yaptı, yaptığının ne anlama geldiğini düşünmeden. Kaynaklarını bilinçsizce harcadığımız dünyadaki dengeleri böyle bozmuyor muyuz? Çünkü resmin bütününü görmeye çalışmak için yeterli sabrımız yok. Çünkü gerçek bizi rahatsız edecek, tutarsızlıklar, haksızlıklar kafamızı karıştıracak, inançlarımız sarsılacak, değerlerimiz alt üst olacak. Farkedersek bir şeyler yapmak zorunda hissedeceğiz, sorumluluk duyacağız. Bilmek, sorumluluk duymak boynumuza yeni bir halka gibi. Herkes bilir ki safça, suçluluk duygularıyla bir çemberi değiştirmeye çalışmak kendilerinin, sevdiklerinin, bazı durumlarda da kurtarmaya çalıştıklarının hayatlarını mahvetmekten başka bir işe yaramaz. O yüzden böylesi daha iyi, bilmemek daha iyi. Onu görmezden gelmeye, unutmaya çalışalım. Rahatımız bozulmasın.
Hele adaleti sağlaması için güvendiğimiz bir savcı, bir yargıç gerçeğe bir ideolojiyle, kinle, gücün keyfiyetiyle islenmiş gözlüklerle bakıyorsa? Polis, asker baştan taraflıysa? Hem haksızlık yapıyor, hem bu haksızlığı hakkı görüyorsa? Haklı olmayı hakkı sanıyorsa? Gerçeği, haklılığımızı, suçsuzluğumuzu ne kadar anlatırsak anlatalım, faydası olmayacaksa?
Aslında bizim sorunumuz, suçluluk duygusu biraz. İstiyoruz ki kimse bir şey kaçırmış olmasın hayatında, her şey olması gerektiği gibi olmuş olsun. Herkes olması gerektiği çemberde, herkes mutlu, biz anlayamasak da onlar öyle mutlu. Kimseyi yargılamamıza gerek yok, korkmaya da gerek yok, suçlu hissetmeye de. Bir kimse diğerinden üstün, şanslı değil. Mahallelerde, dar, pis sokaklarda, meydanlarda, kahvehanelerde ve çarşılarda, eskilikten ve bakımsızlıktan dökülen evlerde, esnaf lokantalarında, hastanelerde ve okullarda, yaşam akıp gidiyor. Slumdog Millionaire gibi filmlere, Salman Rushdie ve Zadie Smith’in kitaplarına, mahalle hayatının anlatıldığı Türk dizilerine bakacak olursak, o yaşam kavgasının sürüp gittiği renkli ve neşeli yerlerde hayatın nabzı, şehirlerin daha zengin, her türlü tatsızlıktan ve rahatsızlıktan kendini korumaya çalışan yerlerine kıyasla daha bir tutkuyla atıyor. Gerçek hayat belki de o, biz kendimizi ondan korumaya çalışıyoruz.
Bizim, bizim gibilerin gerçeği görmezden gelme yolumuz belki de bu. O mahalle dizileri, batılı orta sınıfa hitap eden kitaplar ve filmler, inanmak hoşumuza gideceği için servis edilen renkli, canlı birer hayalden ibaret belki de. Suçluluk duymayı bırak, neredeyse özeneceğiz o renkli, canlı, hiç bir şeyin kolay elde edilmediği hayatlara. Bizim güvenlik, yarını bilmek, kendimizi tehlikelerden korumak uğruna kaçırdığımız hayat parçacığı işte orada. Bunların içinde ne kadar gerçeklik payı olduğunu hiç bilemeyeceğiz, çünkü biz onlar değiliz. Neler yaşadıklarını, yaşadıkları karşısında neler hissettiklerini, kin mi güttüklerini, tevekkülle mi karşıladıklarını bilemeyeceğiz. Bizim gibi "aydınlanmış" tiplerin kendilerinden şanssız gördükleri zavallıları fakirliklerinden ve içine düştükleri karanlıktan kurtarma denemelerinden hiç biri başarıya ulaşmadı henüz. İnsanları neyin mutlu edeceğine dair varsayımlarımız hep yanlış çıktı. Bu demek değil ki bir gerçeklik yok ortada anlaşılması gereken. Tek söylediğim bizim bu gerçekliği anlamak için yeterince çaba göstermediğimiz. Hiç sorduk mu onlara ne istediklerini, aralarında yaşamaya, onları gerçekten anlamaya çalıştık mı? Bir an kafamızı çemberin dışına çıkarmadan onları değiştirmeyi denedik. Belki onlar, bizim onların istemeleri gerektiğini düşündüğümüz şeyi istemiyorlar. Belki asıl bazı şeylerin bilincinde, farkında olmayan, karanlıktan çıkmamakta direnen bizleriz.
***
Ya da içinde yer alacaksın
Kendin içindeyken
Kafan dışındaysa:
Çaresi yok kardeşim
Her akşam böyle içip kederlenip
Mutsuz olacaksın.
Meyhane masalarında kahrolacaksın
Şiirlerle şarkılarla
Kendini avutacaksın.
Ya dışındasındır çemberin
Ya da içinde yer alacaksın
Murathan Mungan
Çember
Afrikalı kadınların boyunlarındaki halkalar gibi - herkes bir sürü çemberin içinde, seçtiğimiz, seçmediğimiz. Her çemberin, her düzenin kuralları var. İnsanın bu kurallara uymaya devam edebilmesi için, yaptığı işin önemli olduğuna, içinde bulunduğu düzenin anlamlı olduğuna inanması gerek. Bu inancın sürekli beslenmesi gerek. İnsan içinde bulunduğu çembere inancını kaybettiğinde, artık ancak zorunluluklar, menfaatler ve korku onu o düzenin içinde tutabilir.
Hepimizin içinde seçmeden bulunduğu çember, bu zaman. Eskiden normal sayılan davranışlar, değerler, varsayımlar artık geçersiz. Şimdi yeni korkularımız, alışkanlıklarımız, beklentilerimiz var. Beğensek de beğenmesek de pek çok insan kendini bu zamanın akışına kaptırmış, bu zamanın kurallarıyla yaşıyor, bu da bizi aynı kurallara göre yaşamaya mecbur bırakıyor. Sonra içine doğduğumuz, büyüdüğümüz aile. Onun da kuralları var. İçine doğduğumuz, büyüdüğümüz ülke. Cinsiyetimiz. Tüm bunları miras almışız. Doğanın, atalarımızın, dedelerimizin, ninelerimizin yıllar yılı yaşayarak, karışarak, çalışarak, savaşarak oluşturduğu bir düzenin, bir zamanın içine doğmuşuz. Bu çemberlerden tamamen çıkmak, onları geride bırakmak, onlar yokmuş gibi yaşamak mümkün mü? Bu mümkün değil. Ancak bunların içinden çıkamıyor olmak, böyle yaşamaktan mutlu olduğumuz anlamına gelmiyor. Peki insan hep içinde bulunduğu çembere uyum sağlamak zorunda mı? İçinde bulunduğu çemberden memnun değilse insan, onu değiştirmeye çalışamaz mı? Yani hem bazı taraflarını sevmemek, hem terketmemek, terkedememek?
Bazen insanın içinde bulunduğu çembere uyum sağlamak için öyle ödünler vermesi gerekir ki, insan ancak kendine ihanet ederek, yalan söyleyerek, kim olduğunu saklayarak, görünmez olarak o çembere uyabilir. İnsan kendine ihanet etmek istemiyorsa, ya o çemberi bırakıp gitmesi, ya da çemberin içinde kalıp savaşması gerekir. Ama bazen bir halkayı çıkarıp atmak, terketmek de kendine ihanet etmektir, özünün bir parçasından vazgeçmektir. İnsan bırakıp giderse başını dik tutamayabilir. Zaten zamanlar, ülkeler, aileler bu sevmediği halde terkedemeyenler sayesinde değişir.
Bir insanın hayatta edebileceği en büyük kötülük, doğasına aykırı davranmak. Ama insanın kendini tanıması, ne yapmak istediğini, ne yapabileceğini anlayabilmesi de o kadar kolay bir şey değil. Bazen aslında ne yapmak istediğimizi kendimize itiraf etmemiz yıllar alır. İnsanın bir şeyi, bir kimseyi, bir işi ya da bir şehri kendini ona kendini kaptırabilecek kadar, adayabilecek kadar, onun arkasında durabilecek kadar önemli görmesi, sevmesi ne büyük cesaret. Bir halkayı bile isteye boynuna geçirmesi. Yapılması gereken bu diye değil, zorunluluktan değil, gerçekten isteyerek. İnsan bunu yaptığında, aslında kendisiyle yüzleşmiş olur, sınırlarıyla, kusurlarıyla. Der ki, ben bu işin, bu insanın arkasında duruyorum, bu iş, bu insan bana layıktır, benim dengimdir. Onun kusurları benim kusurlarımdır. Ben buyum. Eleştirilmesi gerekenler kendileri olanlar değil asla, kendini görmezden gelip, başkalarının amaçlarını kendilerininmiş gibi edinenler. Kendini unutanlar, kabul edilmek, onaylanmak uğruna kendi gibi davranmayanlar. Sorgusuz sualsiz içine doğduğu çembere uyum sağlayanlar, kendilerine, hayatlarına yazık edenler. Başkalarının halkalarını boyunlarına geçirenler. Böyleleri kendilerini avutmaya, oyalamaya, tatminsizliklerini unutmaya çalışırlar, şiirlerle, şarkılarla, hayallerle. İnandıkları işleri yapanların, inanarak bir şeyler üretenlerin ürünlerini izlerler ancak, onlara hayran olur, kendilerini onlarda bulurlar.
Ama biz yine de insanların fikirlerine çok değer veriyoruz. İstiyoruz ki yaşam tarzımız, seçimlerimiz onaylansın, fikirlerimiz kabul görsün, insanların fikrini değiştirsin, ürünlerimiz beğenilsin, alıcı bulsun. Yaşam tarzımızın taklitçisi, fikirlerimizin takipçisi, ürünlerimizin alıcısı ne kadar çok olursa, biz kendimizi o kadar değerli, o kadar güçlü hissedeceğiz. Eğer düşüncelerimizi, yeteneğimizi, seçimlerimizi onaylayan kimse olmasa, kendimize, anlamlı bulduğumuz her şeye inancımız çok çabuk tükenebilir. İnsan ne kadar çok kişiyi ikna ederse, o kadar güç kazanır.
Bazı insanların, ürünlerin büyük başarı kazanması, diğerlerininse bunu başaramaması insanda bazı insanların, onların ürünlerinin daha değerli, anlamlı olduğu kanısı uyandırıyor. Sanki o zamanın, o yerin mutlak bir gerçekliği varmış ve bu insanlar onu anlamaya herkesten daha çok yaklaşmışlar. Onu anlattıklarında dinleyenler tanıyorlar her gün görüp, içinde yaşayıp farketmedikleri gerçeği, şaşırıp gülümsüyorlar. Tarifini gördüklerinde gerçeği, gerçeği gördüklerinde tarifini hatırlıyorlar. Sanki mutlak bir güzellik varmış, pek çok insanın duyunca, görünce, hissedince tanıdığı. Bazen bir şarkı, bir şiir pek çok insanın içinde bir yere dokunuyor. Aşık olmanın gerçeği, kadın olmanın gerçeği, şu anda yaşamanın, Türk olmanın, İstanbul'u sevmenin gerçeği. Bu da hepimizin içinde aynı şeylerin olduğunu göstermez mi, benzer tecrübelerin anılarını, tortularını taşıdığımızı, birbirimize benzediğimizi? Belki de hepimizin içinde gerçeğin, Tanrı'nın bir parçası var, saf bir zerrecik, kendi gibi bir zerrecik gördüğünde onu tanıyor, hatırlıyor. Eğer böyle mutlak bir gerçeklik varsa, buna ulaşmanın yolu insanın samimi ve dürüst olmasıdır herhalde, en başta da kendisine.
Peki bir fikir diğerinden değerli mi? Gerçeği kendi dünya görüşünün, içinde bulunduğu çemberin, kendine miras kalan ve o ana kadar oluşturduğu fikirlerin merceğiyle değil, olduğu gibi görmeye çalışan, düşünen, yeni gördüklerine, farkettiklerine göre fikrini değiştirmeye hazır, neyin doğru, neyin yanlış olduğuna böyle karar veren birinin fikirleri, diğerlerinden daha değerli olmalı. Böyle bir gerçek var mı, varsa da bilinebilir mi? Bence bizim inanmak istediğimizden çok daha karmaşık, dinamik, tutarsız da olsa, bir gerçeklik var. Onu bütün haksızlıklarıyla, tutarsızlıklarıyla, karmaşıklığıyla anlamaya çalışmak, tüm zorluğuna ve rahatsızlığına rağmen değerli bir çaba. Başımıza ne geliyorsa sonuçlarını bilemediğimiz, bilmeye çalışmadığımız, neleri etkilediğini, nelerden etkilendiğini anlamadığımız şeyleri yapmaya devam etmemizden gelmiyor mu? Başımıza bu ekonomik krizi böyle sarmadık mı? Herkes işini yaptı, yaptığının ne anlama geldiğini düşünmeden. Kaynaklarını bilinçsizce harcadığımız dünyadaki dengeleri böyle bozmuyor muyuz? Çünkü resmin bütününü görmeye çalışmak için yeterli sabrımız yok. Çünkü gerçek bizi rahatsız edecek, tutarsızlıklar, haksızlıklar kafamızı karıştıracak, inançlarımız sarsılacak, değerlerimiz alt üst olacak. Farkedersek bir şeyler yapmak zorunda hissedeceğiz, sorumluluk duyacağız. Bilmek, sorumluluk duymak boynumuza yeni bir halka gibi. Herkes bilir ki safça, suçluluk duygularıyla bir çemberi değiştirmeye çalışmak kendilerinin, sevdiklerinin, bazı durumlarda da kurtarmaya çalıştıklarının hayatlarını mahvetmekten başka bir işe yaramaz. O yüzden böylesi daha iyi, bilmemek daha iyi. Onu görmezden gelmeye, unutmaya çalışalım. Rahatımız bozulmasın.
Hele adaleti sağlaması için güvendiğimiz bir savcı, bir yargıç gerçeğe bir ideolojiyle, kinle, gücün keyfiyetiyle islenmiş gözlüklerle bakıyorsa? Polis, asker baştan taraflıysa? Hem haksızlık yapıyor, hem bu haksızlığı hakkı görüyorsa? Haklı olmayı hakkı sanıyorsa? Gerçeği, haklılığımızı, suçsuzluğumuzu ne kadar anlatırsak anlatalım, faydası olmayacaksa?
Aslında bizim sorunumuz, suçluluk duygusu biraz. İstiyoruz ki kimse bir şey kaçırmış olmasın hayatında, her şey olması gerektiği gibi olmuş olsun. Herkes olması gerektiği çemberde, herkes mutlu, biz anlayamasak da onlar öyle mutlu. Kimseyi yargılamamıza gerek yok, korkmaya da gerek yok, suçlu hissetmeye de. Bir kimse diğerinden üstün, şanslı değil. Mahallelerde, dar, pis sokaklarda, meydanlarda, kahvehanelerde ve çarşılarda, eskilikten ve bakımsızlıktan dökülen evlerde, esnaf lokantalarında, hastanelerde ve okullarda, yaşam akıp gidiyor. Slumdog Millionaire gibi filmlere, Salman Rushdie ve Zadie Smith’in kitaplarına, mahalle hayatının anlatıldığı Türk dizilerine bakacak olursak, o yaşam kavgasının sürüp gittiği renkli ve neşeli yerlerde hayatın nabzı, şehirlerin daha zengin, her türlü tatsızlıktan ve rahatsızlıktan kendini korumaya çalışan yerlerine kıyasla daha bir tutkuyla atıyor. Gerçek hayat belki de o, biz kendimizi ondan korumaya çalışıyoruz.
Bizim, bizim gibilerin gerçeği görmezden gelme yolumuz belki de bu. O mahalle dizileri, batılı orta sınıfa hitap eden kitaplar ve filmler, inanmak hoşumuza gideceği için servis edilen renkli, canlı birer hayalden ibaret belki de. Suçluluk duymayı bırak, neredeyse özeneceğiz o renkli, canlı, hiç bir şeyin kolay elde edilmediği hayatlara. Bizim güvenlik, yarını bilmek, kendimizi tehlikelerden korumak uğruna kaçırdığımız hayat parçacığı işte orada. Bunların içinde ne kadar gerçeklik payı olduğunu hiç bilemeyeceğiz, çünkü biz onlar değiliz. Neler yaşadıklarını, yaşadıkları karşısında neler hissettiklerini, kin mi güttüklerini, tevekkülle mi karşıladıklarını bilemeyeceğiz. Bizim gibi "aydınlanmış" tiplerin kendilerinden şanssız gördükleri zavallıları fakirliklerinden ve içine düştükleri karanlıktan kurtarma denemelerinden hiç biri başarıya ulaşmadı henüz. İnsanları neyin mutlu edeceğine dair varsayımlarımız hep yanlış çıktı. Bu demek değil ki bir gerçeklik yok ortada anlaşılması gereken. Tek söylediğim bizim bu gerçekliği anlamak için yeterince çaba göstermediğimiz. Hiç sorduk mu onlara ne istediklerini, aralarında yaşamaya, onları gerçekten anlamaya çalıştık mı? Bir an kafamızı çemberin dışına çıkarmadan onları değiştirmeyi denedik. Belki onlar, bizim onların istemeleri gerektiğini düşündüğümüz şeyi istemiyorlar. Belki asıl bazı şeylerin bilincinde, farkında olmayan, karanlıktan çıkmamakta direnen bizleriz.
***
Sunday, May 24, 2009
appearances
"I don't think the painter need either see or know the sitter. A portrait must not express anything of the sitter's 'soul', essence or character," says Gerhard Richter, a German painter whose work is displayed in the National Portrait Gallery nowadays. The curators explain:
Commenting on his self-portrait, where he is shown looking down, features of his face blurred by soft light, Richter says, "I don't know what I want. I am inconsistent, non-committal, passive; I like the indefinite, the boundless; I like continual uncertainty." OK, so this one displayed the essence of the sitter. Must have been attractive to the three wives we grew acquainted with in those paintings. They were intentionally blurry, of course.
I am also trying to read an essay about art by Iris Murdoch, and she talks of "whole-making," creating a story out of the bits and pieces we do know. And I'm wondering, do we have an essence, after all? Is there a story there? For example, is an artist's work their essence? The portraits may not display their subjects' essence, but do they display their painter's essence? I would say what I write here displays my essence, because I never wrote anything I didn't believe in (...at the time - conveniently.)
It should be, right, if the artist is being honest? If art displays anything at all, it should be its creator's essence, no? But how much of the artist can we really get to know by looking at their creation? They might in fact be completely different. Are they lying (in their creation or in real life), or did we get their work wrong in the first place? Maybe they changed their mind since then?
Anyways... What is an essence if it's just an idea, an emotion captured in words or on canvas?
"I don't think the painter need either see or know the sitter. A portrait must not express anything of the sitter's 'soul', essence or character," says Gerhard Richter, a German painter whose work is displayed in the National Portrait Gallery nowadays. The curators explain:
"Whether drawn from the media or based on family photographs, Richter's source images were intentionally 'banal'. The resulting paintings assert nothing definite, draw attention to no particular facet or feature, and avoid making a specific point. This avoidance tactic deflects the universal human instinct to seek meaning in the appearance of people and things. By depicting people in a range of ordinary situations, the paintings are open to a range of interpretations. In this way, the portraits convey a universal human predicament: the desire to understand the world and a corresponding inability to know anything with any certainty.
From the mid-1960's, Richter's portraits increasingly sustain this tension between inviting yet resisting interpretation. Richter commented: 'You realise that you can't represent reality at all -that what you make represents nothing but itself, and therefore is itself reality.'"
Commenting on his self-portrait, where he is shown looking down, features of his face blurred by soft light, Richter says, "I don't know what I want. I am inconsistent, non-committal, passive; I like the indefinite, the boundless; I like continual uncertainty." OK, so this one displayed the essence of the sitter. Must have been attractive to the three wives we grew acquainted with in those paintings. They were intentionally blurry, of course.
I am also trying to read an essay about art by Iris Murdoch, and she talks of "whole-making," creating a story out of the bits and pieces we do know. And I'm wondering, do we have an essence, after all? Is there a story there? For example, is an artist's work their essence? The portraits may not display their subjects' essence, but do they display their painter's essence? I would say what I write here displays my essence, because I never wrote anything I didn't believe in (...at the time - conveniently.)
It should be, right, if the artist is being honest? If art displays anything at all, it should be its creator's essence, no? But how much of the artist can we really get to know by looking at their creation? They might in fact be completely different. Are they lying (in their creation or in real life), or did we get their work wrong in the first place? Maybe they changed their mind since then?
Anyways... What is an essence if it's just an idea, an emotion captured in words or on canvas?
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Masal
Geceye açar akşam sefaları
Ölüme benzer güne vedaları
Deli dolu bir macera bir şölen bir düğün
Kadere kısmet narin hayatları
Işığa uçar bütün pervaneler
Ateşe giderken ne sahaneler
Dönerek acıyla aşkla şu alemi
Yana yana rakseder divaneler
Bir varmış bir yokmuş dünya masalmış
Her yolcudan bu handa hoş seda kalmış
Gökten üç elma düşmüş yuvarlanmış
Herkes payına düşen elmayı almış
Sora sora az gidip uz gidip kafdağına
Gizini arar saadetin dünyalılar
Günaha yakın dururken bir yanları
Ne kadar hazin hüzünlü sevdalılar
Sezen Aksu, Meral Okay
Geceye açar akşam sefaları
Ölüme benzer güne vedaları
Deli dolu bir macera bir şölen bir düğün
Kadere kısmet narin hayatları
Işığa uçar bütün pervaneler
Ateşe giderken ne sahaneler
Dönerek acıyla aşkla şu alemi
Yana yana rakseder divaneler
Bir varmış bir yokmuş dünya masalmış
Her yolcudan bu handa hoş seda kalmış
Gökten üç elma düşmüş yuvarlanmış
Herkes payına düşen elmayı almış
Sora sora az gidip uz gidip kafdağına
Gizini arar saadetin dünyalılar
Günaha yakın dururken bir yanları
Ne kadar hazin hüzünlü sevdalılar
Sezen Aksu, Meral Okay
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
One Heart
Last week I went to a lecture at the LSE by Professor Conor Gearty, the former director of the school's Centre for the Study of Human Rights. The lecture was titled, "Human Rights after Darwin: is a general theory of human rights now possible?" Professor Gearty looked for the reasons of why we emphatize with and care for others in evolutionary psychology. He said caring for others' feelings and cooperative behaviour might have developed because these attitudes created the highest chances of survival and reproductive success. This could also explain how moral values, laws, religion, philosophy and literature came about. Moreover, these feelings were eventually divorced from the direct gains we could expect from performing them. The only utility we gained from caring for someone could be the pleasure of seeing their well-being (and our contribution to it). As a natural extension of this logic, we could emphatize with and care about people whom we don't know at all, and who will never return our favour. (Except maybe by karma points in this world or another.)
Professor Gearty, however, was quick to accept that caring for our kin and community took precedence over caring for strangers. If we perceive the interests of our kin and those of strangers to be in conflict, we would inevitably take sides with our kin. It seems to me that most of us have an inalienable need to care and feel and contribute to others' well-being. It is required for our happiness and fulfillment. It is a well of moral energy that needs to be used up, that needs to be channelled. However, the most essential requirements for survival are our first priority. Then comes the well-being of our family and friends. If all is well, and if we still have the time and energy and courage to notice (because choosing to look over misery is nothing but an excuse for inaction, laziness), then we start genuinely emphatizing with people we don't know about, and do something to change something for them. (Even then, I would be more likely to feel strongly about the problems in Turkey than those in another country.)
This is true on the level of individuals, people and governments. If we feel our survival and well-being to be threatened by others, their feelings and well-being will never matter to us. That's why the unjustified fear and paranoia created by indoctrination, history and received opinions can be so dangerous.
But can we really emphatize, can we really understand how others feel? Can we assume that just because our nature obliges us to care, there is a true and universal understanding of wellness and happiness? Does the urge to move forward mean that we are all moving towards a single point? Do we know where we are going, where we should be going?
Here the question of cultural relativism vs. universalism comes into stage. Can we really understand the struggle for survival and suffering when we have never struggled, suffered? Can we know the good and the best for others? Do they want for themselves what we want for them?
I believe in universal rights that stem simply from the dignity of being human. Everybody deserves them, even when they don't know it or when they are too pre-occupied with barely surviving to fight for it. What matters, however, is how we go about reaching these common goals. It is very important to understand people's values, their first and foremost needs and priorities, the context. And this takes hard work and we may be frustrated. The definition of good may be universal, but the definition of improvement differs from one community to the other. One community may need clean water, another may be trapped in violent conflict, and another might be fighting for political rights and freedom of expression. It is very important to attend to the reality of the local situation if we genuinely have people's well-being (and not our high ideals) at heart. Realism is better than idealism.
***
Once I thought that I had two hearts and they excluded each other. I wasn't happy with either of them. But now I realize they are knitted to each other with tiny strings, veins and arteries, they are in fact one. They feed each other constantly and grow from one another. If one were to shrink, the other would suffer, too.
There's no better way than being loved and believed in for what one is to gratify one's self. That little core in me shines, throbs with joy, expands. On the other hand, loving and caring is essential to happiness (for reasons I explained above), and it can be quite a selfish business. Sometimes I want to tell people (and my little calculating, doubting brain) - just let me be naive and stupid and care for something, even when I won't get anything in return, because I need to feel! I think sometimes we feel bitter when our love is not returned, not just because we are not loved back, and our ego suffers, but because we are denied the possibility to love, to make someone happy. It is so difficult having to do nothing when you want to do lots.
And when you expect lots in return, doing lots is selfish. Loving without expecting constant gratification in return is only possible when you are at peace with yourself.
Last week I went to a lecture at the LSE by Professor Conor Gearty, the former director of the school's Centre for the Study of Human Rights. The lecture was titled, "Human Rights after Darwin: is a general theory of human rights now possible?" Professor Gearty looked for the reasons of why we emphatize with and care for others in evolutionary psychology. He said caring for others' feelings and cooperative behaviour might have developed because these attitudes created the highest chances of survival and reproductive success. This could also explain how moral values, laws, religion, philosophy and literature came about. Moreover, these feelings were eventually divorced from the direct gains we could expect from performing them. The only utility we gained from caring for someone could be the pleasure of seeing their well-being (and our contribution to it). As a natural extension of this logic, we could emphatize with and care about people whom we don't know at all, and who will never return our favour. (Except maybe by karma points in this world or another.)
Professor Gearty, however, was quick to accept that caring for our kin and community took precedence over caring for strangers. If we perceive the interests of our kin and those of strangers to be in conflict, we would inevitably take sides with our kin. It seems to me that most of us have an inalienable need to care and feel and contribute to others' well-being. It is required for our happiness and fulfillment. It is a well of moral energy that needs to be used up, that needs to be channelled. However, the most essential requirements for survival are our first priority. Then comes the well-being of our family and friends. If all is well, and if we still have the time and energy and courage to notice (because choosing to look over misery is nothing but an excuse for inaction, laziness), then we start genuinely emphatizing with people we don't know about, and do something to change something for them. (Even then, I would be more likely to feel strongly about the problems in Turkey than those in another country.)
This is true on the level of individuals, people and governments. If we feel our survival and well-being to be threatened by others, their feelings and well-being will never matter to us. That's why the unjustified fear and paranoia created by indoctrination, history and received opinions can be so dangerous.
But can we really emphatize, can we really understand how others feel? Can we assume that just because our nature obliges us to care, there is a true and universal understanding of wellness and happiness? Does the urge to move forward mean that we are all moving towards a single point? Do we know where we are going, where we should be going?
Here the question of cultural relativism vs. universalism comes into stage. Can we really understand the struggle for survival and suffering when we have never struggled, suffered? Can we know the good and the best for others? Do they want for themselves what we want for them?
I believe in universal rights that stem simply from the dignity of being human. Everybody deserves them, even when they don't know it or when they are too pre-occupied with barely surviving to fight for it. What matters, however, is how we go about reaching these common goals. It is very important to understand people's values, their first and foremost needs and priorities, the context. And this takes hard work and we may be frustrated. The definition of good may be universal, but the definition of improvement differs from one community to the other. One community may need clean water, another may be trapped in violent conflict, and another might be fighting for political rights and freedom of expression. It is very important to attend to the reality of the local situation if we genuinely have people's well-being (and not our high ideals) at heart. Realism is better than idealism.
***
Once I thought that I had two hearts and they excluded each other. I wasn't happy with either of them. But now I realize they are knitted to each other with tiny strings, veins and arteries, they are in fact one. They feed each other constantly and grow from one another. If one were to shrink, the other would suffer, too.
There's no better way than being loved and believed in for what one is to gratify one's self. That little core in me shines, throbs with joy, expands. On the other hand, loving and caring is essential to happiness (for reasons I explained above), and it can be quite a selfish business. Sometimes I want to tell people (and my little calculating, doubting brain) - just let me be naive and stupid and care for something, even when I won't get anything in return, because I need to feel! I think sometimes we feel bitter when our love is not returned, not just because we are not loved back, and our ego suffers, but because we are denied the possibility to love, to make someone happy. It is so difficult having to do nothing when you want to do lots.
And when you expect lots in return, doing lots is selfish. Loving without expecting constant gratification in return is only possible when you are at peace with yourself.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Medenileşmek
Şunu bir arkadaşıma yazdım, hoşuma gitti buraya da koyuyorum:
...
Davranışlarımızın biyolojik sebepleri konusunda bir süredir düşünüyorum. Yakın zamanda Altın Defter kitabında bir bölüm okudum. Bir grup ilkbaharda kırlık bir yere gidiyorlar ve bir sürü çekirgeyle kelebek görüyorlar. Bir çoğalma, yenilip yutulup azalma, sonra yeniden çoğalma, böylelikle türünü devam ettirme şeklinde sürüp giden bir döngü. Sonra şöyle bir konuşma geçiyor, alıntılayım:
"This country (Güney Afrika'dan bahsediyorlar, 2. Dünya Savaşı sırasında) is larger than Spain. It contains one and a half million blacks, if one may mention them at all, and one hundred thousand whites. That, in itself, is a thought which demands two minutes' silence. And what do we see? One might imagine - one would have every excuse for imagining, despite what you say, Comrade Willi, that this insignificant handful of sand on the beaches of time -not bad, that image?- unoriginal, but always apt - this million-and-a-little-over-a-half people exist in this pretty piece of God's earth solely in order to make each other miserable..." Here Willi picked up his book again and applied his attention to it. "Comrade Willi, let your eyes follow the print but let the ears of your soul listen. For the facts are - the facts - that there's enough food here for everyone! -enough materials for houses for everyone! - enough talent though admittedly so well hidden under bushels at the moment that nothing but the most generous eye could perceive it - enough talent, I say, to create light where now darkness exists."
"From which you deduce?" said Willi.
"I deduce nothing. I am being stuck by a new... it's a blinding light, nothing less..."
"But what you say is the truth about the whole world, not just this country," said Maryrose.
"Magnificent Maryrose! Yes. My eyes are being opened to - Comrade Willi, would you not say that there is some principle at work not yet admitted to our philosophy? Some principle of destruction?" (The Golden Notebook, Doris Lessing, pg. 378-379)
Bence bu bölüm sorunu çok iyi açıklıyor. Bir yanda aklımız, vicdanımız, doğru bildiklerimiz var. Diğer yanda ise içgüdülerimiz, isteklerimiz. Her yerde insanlar ölüyor, açlık, sefalet çekiyor, birbirleriyle savaşıyor, erkekler kadınları dövüyor, tecavüz ediyor. Doğal afetlerde insanların binlercesi bir anda kayboluyor. Bir tarafta da insanlar zenginlik içinde, kendi doğalarına ve doğaya hükmetmişler, dünyanın geri kalanını geri buluyor. AB vatandaşlarının Türkiye'yi nasıl gördüğü üzerine bir rapor üzerinde çalışırken şunu okumuştum: Medenileşmenin birinci göstergesi, erkeğin gücünü kontrol altında tutabilmesiymiş. Tamam, doğru. Ama medeni ve gelişmiş toplumların sorumluluğu burada bitiyor mu? Bence gerçekten medenileşmek, insanların, toplumların içlerindeki mücadele, elde etme ve diğerlerini yok etme güdüsünü kontrol altına alabilmesi, kendisinden kötü durumdakilere yardım edebilmesi, elindekileri paylaşabilmesiyle olur. O yüzden dünyadaki en gelişmiş toplumların bile medeni olduğunu söyleyemeyiz. (Sanırım bir zamanlar devrim düşleyenler gerçek bir medenileşme arzuluyorlardı. Şimdi kapitalizmin 'insan doğasına', hayatta kalma ve elde etme içgüdümüze en uygun düzen olduğunu söyleyenler de son cevabı vermiş olmanın rahatlığı içindeler.)
Ben senin bahsettiğin determinizme tam olarak katılmıyorum, katılmak istemiyorum. Eğer aklımız, bilincimiz varsa, bir toplum bilinci varsa, bunu kullanmak gerekir. İçimizdeki yok etme, başkalarının pahasına yükselme güdüsünü kontrol altına alabilmek... Mümkün olduğunca medeni ve adil bir yaşam sürmeye çalışmak... Anlamlı, insanların hayatını iyileştirecek, kolaylaştıracak bir şeyler yapmak, yaratmak. Günlük hayatımıza yükleyebileceğimiz bir anlam varsa da, bu yönde göstereceğimiz çaba olmalı. Ama bilmiyorum bu mümkün mü, yoksa hep bilardo topları gibi, vicdan azabı içinde yaşamak zorunda mı kalacağız. Kendimize rağmen istemediğimiz şeyleri yaparak.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Imagine you were Pınar Selek
First, the reason I have been away for a while: I was working on a longer piece. Since I started keeping this blog, I have had the feeling that I should put everything I write here for the sake of completeness. It's hard to get over this self-imposed obligation. But that piece is too long, so I will keep it to myself for the time being. But of course, it's just a step along the way. There will be a next step, which is this post.
But then I thought, my previous post was the perfect ending to this blog. "There's no happy ending - mutlu son yok." The only child wakes up to the reality that life is not easy, and it's not enough to do less than what she needs to do just because. She's not entitled to anything more than everyone else. The purpose of the stars and people is not to align themselves so as to make her wishes come true there and then. Sometimes she should align herself. Sulking because "this or that should have been easier" doesn't make it easier. Actually, taking good care of and nurturing anything takes hard work. And nobody is an exception. And so I thought, I have matured a little bit since I've started writing here. This is a good point to end.
But then, there's no happy ending and no absolute wisdom. I keep getting new ideas. For example, I've had this dream where I actually remember saying to myself, "these are two really good ideas, I should write them!" In the dream I was sure I would remember them, but of course I don't remember them. Maybe all they were was the happy dream, the idea of a good idea. Then this morning I came up with a new idea but then completely forgot about it.
And I keep seeing new examples of what I've written about before. At first, out of laziness disguised by a noble sense of originality, I say: "I've written about this before, I shouldn't repeat myself!" But the injustice is going on. As long as the injustice is going on, we shouldn't content ourselves with having said something once. We should say the truth, we should speak our minds as many times as the truth is overlooked and the justice is violated, at the expense of repeating ourselves and boring people. It's the obligation of those who are aware.
This story I wrote. It's more a diary than a story. Again, out of laziness disguised by a noble sense of sincerity, I haven't been able to write any fiction so far. I say to myself, I am not able to feel strongly (the emotional energy mentioned in the Golden Notebook) about anything that doesn't personally touch me. So I consider myself unable to imagine what someone else could be going through, feeling, imagining worlds. I feel like truth and sincerity would escape me if I were to talk about someone else, I could never forget myself.
Performing vs. feeling. In What Philosophers Think, one of the philosophers made this distinction. Being too aware of your feelings drains the truth out of them. The philosopher there gave the example of becoming aware that you are feeling sorry for someone, and then thinking, "how noble of me to feel sorry!" This isn't putting yourself in that person's shoes and genuinely feeling sorry for them. This is staying squarely in your own shoes.
If you are doing something, if you are somewhere, when your heart is somewhere else, you are actively and consciously performing. Sometimes when the plane lands you hear the voice of the flight attendant, and it sounds more like a performance than someone really speaking. (Or you get the impression that a voice that exudes that much self-importance cannot be real. She must be kidding us!)
You get the point. I'm afraid of this performing seeping into and infecting what I write. Pretending I care about something when in fact I only like the idea of caring about it, I like being that kind of person, who cares about such things. That would be forcing it. I don't want to force anything. So far I've only gotten feelings and ideas out of the world. Will I be able to create worlds out of feelings and ideas? Go from someone feeling sorry for someone suffering to someone understanding and feeling what suffering is like? Maybe I don't have what it takes, and I should suck it up.
Anyway, as I was thinking about these things, I came across J.K. Rowling's Commencement Speech at Harvard University. (The things I get out of people's profiles in the Facebook! Social networking will speed up the development of humankind.) She says:
I have been reading a lot about Pınar Selek in Radikal lately. She is a Turkish sociologist who tried to imagine when she could have had a very comfortable, respectable life had she chosen to look over these things. She imagined what it would be like to be a transvestite, a child living on the streets, a young boy (or older boy) doing his military service, and a member of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). She advocated pacifism and women's rights. She put her money where her mouth is and talked to these people, lived with them. She tried to grasp their truth.
Because of her stance, her attitude, because of her choosing to be who she is rather than denying herself, she was accused of being involved in a 1998 explosion in the Spice Bazaar in Istanbul. After spending two and a half years in jail she was acquitted, but the Supreme Court of Appeals overturned this decision. To this day it is not clear whether the explosion was due to a LPG container or a bomb, but now she's being charged again. The prosecutor demands a life sentence. Radikal columnist Yıldırım Türker writes on 13 April:
Recently I stepped out of Waitrose with bags in my hand. A dark lady, with dark hair and eyes (saçları, gözü kara) caught my eye. She stopped me and started explaining her cause, she was a member of the Iran Liberty Association. Apparently Iran is putting pressure on Iraq to return the residents of Camp Ashraf, who are members of the Iranian opposition party. I tried to escape, I have never made a donation on the street before. She said her brother was killed, and she had the choice between going on with her life in the US, where her daughter is, and coming to the UK to take part in this campaign. "We all come to this world for a reason," she said. I said I didn't know whether my contribution would be going towards a good cause, and she said she "wouldn't be standing there for 10 hours every day if she didn't believe that it was." Maybe it was a mistake I donated without doing due diligence of who is right. Maybe it is not possible to know who is right. A few days later I received a receipt by post, as she had promised.
Today a Tamil group was protesting in front of the US Embassy. During our two-hour wait we listened to them chanting "Obama-Obama" and their drum beat.
I might have been annoyed had they been a Kurdish group protesting against Turkey.
But we should all work on our imaginations to grasp the truth.
First, the reason I have been away for a while: I was working on a longer piece. Since I started keeping this blog, I have had the feeling that I should put everything I write here for the sake of completeness. It's hard to get over this self-imposed obligation. But that piece is too long, so I will keep it to myself for the time being. But of course, it's just a step along the way. There will be a next step, which is this post.
But then I thought, my previous post was the perfect ending to this blog. "There's no happy ending - mutlu son yok." The only child wakes up to the reality that life is not easy, and it's not enough to do less than what she needs to do just because. She's not entitled to anything more than everyone else. The purpose of the stars and people is not to align themselves so as to make her wishes come true there and then. Sometimes she should align herself. Sulking because "this or that should have been easier" doesn't make it easier. Actually, taking good care of and nurturing anything takes hard work. And nobody is an exception. And so I thought, I have matured a little bit since I've started writing here. This is a good point to end.
But then, there's no happy ending and no absolute wisdom. I keep getting new ideas. For example, I've had this dream where I actually remember saying to myself, "these are two really good ideas, I should write them!" In the dream I was sure I would remember them, but of course I don't remember them. Maybe all they were was the happy dream, the idea of a good idea. Then this morning I came up with a new idea but then completely forgot about it.
And I keep seeing new examples of what I've written about before. At first, out of laziness disguised by a noble sense of originality, I say: "I've written about this before, I shouldn't repeat myself!" But the injustice is going on. As long as the injustice is going on, we shouldn't content ourselves with having said something once. We should say the truth, we should speak our minds as many times as the truth is overlooked and the justice is violated, at the expense of repeating ourselves and boring people. It's the obligation of those who are aware.
This story I wrote. It's more a diary than a story. Again, out of laziness disguised by a noble sense of sincerity, I haven't been able to write any fiction so far. I say to myself, I am not able to feel strongly (the emotional energy mentioned in the Golden Notebook) about anything that doesn't personally touch me. So I consider myself unable to imagine what someone else could be going through, feeling, imagining worlds. I feel like truth and sincerity would escape me if I were to talk about someone else, I could never forget myself.
Performing vs. feeling. In What Philosophers Think, one of the philosophers made this distinction. Being too aware of your feelings drains the truth out of them. The philosopher there gave the example of becoming aware that you are feeling sorry for someone, and then thinking, "how noble of me to feel sorry!" This isn't putting yourself in that person's shoes and genuinely feeling sorry for them. This is staying squarely in your own shoes.
If you are doing something, if you are somewhere, when your heart is somewhere else, you are actively and consciously performing. Sometimes when the plane lands you hear the voice of the flight attendant, and it sounds more like a performance than someone really speaking. (Or you get the impression that a voice that exudes that much self-importance cannot be real. She must be kidding us!)
You get the point. I'm afraid of this performing seeping into and infecting what I write. Pretending I care about something when in fact I only like the idea of caring about it, I like being that kind of person, who cares about such things. That would be forcing it. I don't want to force anything. So far I've only gotten feelings and ideas out of the world. Will I be able to create worlds out of feelings and ideas? Go from someone feeling sorry for someone suffering to someone understanding and feeling what suffering is like? Maybe I don't have what it takes, and I should suck it up.
Anyway, as I was thinking about these things, I came across J.K. Rowling's Commencement Speech at Harvard University. (The things I get out of people's profiles in the Facebook! Social networking will speed up the development of humankind.) She says:
Imagination is not only the uniquely human capacity to envision that which is not, and therefore the fount of all invention and innovation. In its arguably most transformative and revelatory capacity, it is the power that enables us to empathise with humans whose experiences we have never shared.
One of the greatest formative experiences of my life preceded Harry Potter, though it informed much of what I subsequently wrote in those books. This revelation came in the form of one of my earliest day jobs. Though I was sloping off to write stories during my lunch hours, I paid the rent in my early 20s by working at the African research department at Amnesty International’s headquarters in London.
There in my little office I read hastily scribbled letters smuggled out of totalitarian regimes by men and women who were risking imprisonment to inform the outside world of what was happening to them. I saw photographs of those who had disappeared without trace, sent to Amnesty by their desperate families and friends. I read the testimony of torture victims and saw pictures of their injuries. I opened handwritten, eye-witness accounts of summary trials and executions, of kidnappings and rapes.
Many of my co-workers were ex-political prisoners, people who had been displaced from their homes, or fled into exile, because they had the temerity to speak against their governments. Visitors to our offices included those who had come to give information, or to try and find out what had happened to those they had left behind.
I shall never forget the African torture victim, a young man no older than I was at the time, who had become mentally ill after all he had endured in his homeland. He trembled uncontrollably as he spoke into a video camera about the brutality inflicted upon him. He was a foot taller than I was, and seemed as fragile as a child. I was given the job of escorting him back to the Underground Station afterwards, and this man whose life had been shattered by cruelty took my hand with exquisite courtesy, and wished me future happiness.
And as long as I live I shall remember walking along an empty corridor and suddenly hearing, from behind a closed door, a scream of pain and horror such as I have never heard since. The door opened, and the researcher poked out her head and told me to run and make a hot drink for the young man sitting with her. She had just had to give him the news that in retaliation for his own outspokenness against his country’s regime, his mother had been seized and executed.
Every day of my working week in my early 20s I was reminded how incredibly fortunate I was, to live in a country with a democratically elected government, where legal representation and a public trial were the rights of everyone.
Every day, I saw more evidence about the evils humankind will inflict on their fellow humans, to gain or maintain power. I began to have nightmares, literal nightmares, about some of the things I saw, heard, and read.
And yet I also learned more about human goodness at Amnesty International than I had ever known before.
Amnesty mobilises thousands of people who have never been tortured or imprisoned for their beliefs to act on behalf of those who have. The power of human empathy, leading to collective action, saves lives, and frees prisoners. Ordinary people, whose personal well-being and security are assured, join together in huge numbers to save people they do not know, and will never meet. My small participation in that process was one of the most humbling and inspiring experiences of my life.
Unlike any other creature on this planet, humans can learn and understand, without having experienced. They can think themselves into other people’s places.
Of course, this is a power, like my brand of fictional magic, that is morally neutral. One might use such an ability to manipulate, or control, just as much as to understand or sympathise.
And many prefer not to exercise their imaginations at all. They choose to remain comfortably within the bounds of their own experience, never troubling to wonder how it would feel to have been born other than they are. They can refuse to hear screams or to peer inside cages; they can close their minds and hearts to any suffering that does not touch them personally; they can refuse to know.
I have been reading a lot about Pınar Selek in Radikal lately. She is a Turkish sociologist who tried to imagine when she could have had a very comfortable, respectable life had she chosen to look over these things. She imagined what it would be like to be a transvestite, a child living on the streets, a young boy (or older boy) doing his military service, and a member of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). She advocated pacifism and women's rights. She put her money where her mouth is and talked to these people, lived with them. She tried to grasp their truth.
Because of her stance, her attitude, because of her choosing to be who she is rather than denying herself, she was accused of being involved in a 1998 explosion in the Spice Bazaar in Istanbul. After spending two and a half years in jail she was acquitted, but the Supreme Court of Appeals overturned this decision. To this day it is not clear whether the explosion was due to a LPG container or a bomb, but now she's being charged again. The prosecutor demands a life sentence. Radikal columnist Yıldırım Türker writes on 13 April:
Pınar Selek’le bir keresinde hapishaneden çıktığında buluşmuştuk. O sıralar 29 yaşındaydı. Hayalî bombacı olarak iki buçuk yılını Ümraniye Cezaevi’nde geçirmiş, kanlı bir ‘Hayata Dönüş’ operasyonu ertesi tahliye edilmişti. Çok şey görmüş, çok yaradan yaralanmıştı. Ama kendi olma, kendi kalma mücadelesini sürdürmeye yeminliydi.
Güneşli bir sabah Pınar Selek’le iki ajan gibi buluştuğumuzu hatırlıyorum. Ardındaki gazeteci ve diğer meraklıları atlatarak randevu yerine geldi. Kendimize bir sığınak bulup uzun uzun konuştuk. Beni en çok şaşırtan, hiç acılaşmamış olmasıydı. Coşkusundan, iyi bir dünyalı olma hevesinden hiçbir şey kaybetmemişti. İnsana şu dünyada durduğu yeri zindan ediveren içtenliği hiç yara almamıştı. Önce ondan sonra kendinizden kuşku duyar hale geliyor, bu gencecik insanın inceliği, yumuşaklığı, sevecenliği karşısında kilitlenip kalıyordunuz. Kendi hakkında bir şey anlatırken mahçup olan, tutuklandığında yaşadığı işkenceden bahsetmeyi uygun bulmayan, mağduriyet dilinin refahına bir an olsun sığınmayan Pınar, kendini mümkünse unutturmak istiyordu. Kahramanlığa, önde durmaya yatkın değildi, dünyayla yüzleşme yordamı.
Yıllar önce daha gencecik bir kızken sokak çocuklarının arasında onlardan biri olarak dünyaya tutunma çabasına tanık olmuştum. Sonra Ülker sokaktan üstlerine şanlı bayraklar sallanarak kovulan travestilerle birlikte, aynı kuytuda sabahladığına tanık olmuştum.
Pınar Selek hakkındaki duygularım hiç değişmedi.
Militarist vahşilerinki de.
Onlar, bu genç kadının bombalardan daha güçlü olduğunu erken fark ettiler.
Her acıdan, her zulümden yüzünde aynı ışıklı gülümseme, aynı tevazuuyla çıkışı besbelli onları deli etti. Onu benzetemediler. Pınar, etrafına mutluluk ve güç saçarak kendi seçmiş olduğu hayatı, kendi seçmiş olduğu hayatın müttefikleriyle birlikte sürdürüyor çünkü.
Kadının özgürleşmesinden, heteroseksizme karşı direnmekten, barışın önemli bir tetikleyicisi olan vicdani redden dem vuruyor çünkü. ‘Barışamadık’ kitabının bir bölümüne epigraf olarak Gandhi’nin bir sözünü koymuş: “Barışçıl mücadelede en ufak bir kuşku başarısızlık için yeterlidir. Sonuna kadar başarılı olmanın yolu saflık ve dürüstlüktür.”
Onun yıllarını çalan, işkencecileri üstüne salıp canını yakan, anasını alan, hayatı ona zehretmeye çalışanlara rağmen hep saf ve dürüst kaldı."
Recently I stepped out of Waitrose with bags in my hand. A dark lady, with dark hair and eyes (saçları, gözü kara) caught my eye. She stopped me and started explaining her cause, she was a member of the Iran Liberty Association. Apparently Iran is putting pressure on Iraq to return the residents of Camp Ashraf, who are members of the Iranian opposition party. I tried to escape, I have never made a donation on the street before. She said her brother was killed, and she had the choice between going on with her life in the US, where her daughter is, and coming to the UK to take part in this campaign. "We all come to this world for a reason," she said. I said I didn't know whether my contribution would be going towards a good cause, and she said she "wouldn't be standing there for 10 hours every day if she didn't believe that it was." Maybe it was a mistake I donated without doing due diligence of who is right. Maybe it is not possible to know who is right. A few days later I received a receipt by post, as she had promised.
Today a Tamil group was protesting in front of the US Embassy. During our two-hour wait we listened to them chanting "Obama-Obama" and their drum beat.
I might have been annoyed had they been a Kurdish group protesting against Turkey.
But we should all work on our imaginations to grasp the truth.
Friday, April 10, 2009
mutlu son yok
insan hep bir şeylerin peşinde, sanki o olursa hayatımız mutlu, mesut, güven içinde, rayında ve tıkırında devam edecekmiş, huzura kavuşacakmışız gibi. sorulan sorulara en iyi cevaplar verilmiş, artık yeni sorular sorulmayacakmış gibi. iş bulmak, ev bulmak, birini bulmak, birini elde etmek, tek taş yüzük almak, evlenmek, ev döşemek, çocuk doğurmak, bir fikri gerçekleştirmek, bir projeyi bitirmek, kitap yazmak, kitap bastırmak, hayranlık, ödül kazanmak, bir sınavı vermek, mezun olmak, iyileşmek, atlatmak, kurtulmak, unutmak, barışmak, ikna etmek, tatile gitmek, vize almak, yeni bir şehre taşınmak, bir yere gitmek, bir yere dönmek... ben artık, sonunda, umarım anladım ki mutlu son yok. yaşamın kolay ve eğlenceli bir şey olması gerektiği fikrini de atmalıyım kafamdan. bu çaba, bu huzursuzluk, tatminsizlik, özlemler, endişeler, korkular, şüpheler hep sürecek. arada bir nefes gibi, teneffüs gibi mutlu, anlamlı (anlamlı olup olmadığını düşünmek akla gelmeyecek kadar anlamlı) anlar, zamanlar olacak. insanlar, yerler olacak. böylece devam edebileceğiz huzursuz yaşamımıza.
yoksa mutlu son yok. iyi ki de yok. bu yolculuğa anlam verebilecek bizden başka kimse de yok. o yüzden artık bir şeylerin olmasını beklemeyi, bir şeylerden, birilerinden medet ummayı bırakmak gerek. hayatta en önemli şey insanın tek başına, sağlam durabilmesi.
benden şimdilik bu kadar.
insan hep bir şeylerin peşinde, sanki o olursa hayatımız mutlu, mesut, güven içinde, rayında ve tıkırında devam edecekmiş, huzura kavuşacakmışız gibi. sorulan sorulara en iyi cevaplar verilmiş, artık yeni sorular sorulmayacakmış gibi. iş bulmak, ev bulmak, birini bulmak, birini elde etmek, tek taş yüzük almak, evlenmek, ev döşemek, çocuk doğurmak, bir fikri gerçekleştirmek, bir projeyi bitirmek, kitap yazmak, kitap bastırmak, hayranlık, ödül kazanmak, bir sınavı vermek, mezun olmak, iyileşmek, atlatmak, kurtulmak, unutmak, barışmak, ikna etmek, tatile gitmek, vize almak, yeni bir şehre taşınmak, bir yere gitmek, bir yere dönmek... ben artık, sonunda, umarım anladım ki mutlu son yok. yaşamın kolay ve eğlenceli bir şey olması gerektiği fikrini de atmalıyım kafamdan. bu çaba, bu huzursuzluk, tatminsizlik, özlemler, endişeler, korkular, şüpheler hep sürecek. arada bir nefes gibi, teneffüs gibi mutlu, anlamlı (anlamlı olup olmadığını düşünmek akla gelmeyecek kadar anlamlı) anlar, zamanlar olacak. insanlar, yerler olacak. böylece devam edebileceğiz huzursuz yaşamımıza.
yoksa mutlu son yok. iyi ki de yok. bu yolculuğa anlam verebilecek bizden başka kimse de yok. o yüzden artık bir şeylerin olmasını beklemeyi, bir şeylerden, birilerinden medet ummayı bırakmak gerek. hayatta en önemli şey insanın tek başına, sağlam durabilmesi.
benden şimdilik bu kadar.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Big ideas, bad ideas
This week I went to see Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket with a good friend. The movie reminded me of a post I wrote long ago: "It must be so sad to realize that what you dedicated your life for is actually wrong, or unimportant. Maybe there is a point of no return, you can't accept the unimportance of something after you spend a certain number of years working for it. After that point, you just keep doing what you have done for years, and you try to convince a world that doesn't care that your story has a point to it."
Assuming you know the best for someone other than yourself is a formula that was proven wrong over and over. We are trying to add depth and meaning to our lives, but at what cost? Are ideas more important than people? (Assuming it's really naive idealism that's driving us.) How to make peace with the arbitrariness of loss and misery? Should fortune come with responsibility? Is it possible to change anything?
I don't know. I wish I found a way to sustainably forget about all this.
This week I went to see Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket with a good friend. The movie reminded me of a post I wrote long ago: "It must be so sad to realize that what you dedicated your life for is actually wrong, or unimportant. Maybe there is a point of no return, you can't accept the unimportance of something after you spend a certain number of years working for it. After that point, you just keep doing what you have done for years, and you try to convince a world that doesn't care that your story has a point to it."
Assuming you know the best for someone other than yourself is a formula that was proven wrong over and over. We are trying to add depth and meaning to our lives, but at what cost? Are ideas more important than people? (Assuming it's really naive idealism that's driving us.) How to make peace with the arbitrariness of loss and misery? Should fortune come with responsibility? Is it possible to change anything?
I don't know. I wish I found a way to sustainably forget about all this.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Political risk
Maybe you know that I work in a political risk research and consulting company. Political risks lead to economically inefficient market outcomes. Legislation passed under the influence of an interest group or selective, untransparent and unfair implementation of rules and regulations create political risk. In an environment with high political risk, the outcome of an endeavour depends not only on your talent and effort, but also on the whims and wishes of the people in the system within which you are operating. To reach the outcome you'd like, you have to factor political risk into your equation (and pay us). This is what we do our research and consult our clients on. Too bad, but real world.
The events of the past week made me realize that political risk is present in all systems, in all organizations, including ours. We all have to work around relationships, the hierarchy, egos and pure human drama to get the outcomes we want. And sometimes, all these things won't allow us to get the outcomes we want.
One more thing that must have been obvious to all but myself.
Maybe you know that I work in a political risk research and consulting company. Political risks lead to economically inefficient market outcomes. Legislation passed under the influence of an interest group or selective, untransparent and unfair implementation of rules and regulations create political risk. In an environment with high political risk, the outcome of an endeavour depends not only on your talent and effort, but also on the whims and wishes of the people in the system within which you are operating. To reach the outcome you'd like, you have to factor political risk into your equation (and pay us). This is what we do our research and consult our clients on. Too bad, but real world.
The events of the past week made me realize that political risk is present in all systems, in all organizations, including ours. We all have to work around relationships, the hierarchy, egos and pure human drama to get the outcomes we want. And sometimes, all these things won't allow us to get the outcomes we want.
One more thing that must have been obvious to all but myself.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
What you thought you knew (but didn't actually know) about Turkey - 3
- The dynamics of ethnic seperatism, Islamism and neo-nationalism
This is not the first time I'm writing about the Kurdish issue. But after reading Cornell and Karaveli's article, I became aware of some important factors that contributed to the formation of the problem as we have it today. I would like to note them here.
Kurds are organized around a tribal and feudal structure, and belong to the more Orthodox Shafi'i school of Islam. Right-wing parties have courted tribal leaders to win Kurds' support. Kurdish tribal leaders continue to play an important role in Turkish politics. However, their influential role does not necessarily translate into more education and economic development in the region. These leaders have an interest in keeping Kurds' loyalties exclusively to themselves.
The Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) first emerged as a revolt against the feudal structure of the Kurdish society. The movement soon realized that the Turkish state protected the status quo, and turned to Kurdish nationalism as its driving ideology following the collapse of communism. Now its survival depends on its domination of Kurdish politics, and its interest lies in the continuation of the violent conflict. This attitude in turn provokes Turkish nationalism.
The authors call the Kurdish question the main failure of Kemalism, as it cast doubt on the credibility of the whole thought system. Along with secularism, it was built upon nationalism, theoretically replacing religious solidarity with loyalty to the nation state (although in practice, religious minorities were often discriminated against.) The AKP, at first, won Kurds' support by shifting the emphasis back to religious solidarity. However, the party itself is now moving towards a more nationalistic position. Actually, this tendency is not new. It is the legacy of the Turkish-Islamic synthesis idea following the 1980 coup. Gülen schools in African and Central Asian countries seem to promote Turkish culture more than Islamic values.
Meanwhile, mixed signals from the EU, the ideological confusion created by the Western support for Islamic conservatism and the reluctance of the US to uproot the PKK from northern Iraq have irritated secular nationalists and fuelled their suspicions about the motivations of the EU and the US. These now brand themselves as neo-nationalists.
With awe (and admittedly, some annoyance) the authors say:
Just as they have appealed to the right as well as to the left with liberal economic policies coupled with generous welfare subsidies, the Islamic conservatives manage to simultaneously canalize Turkish nationalism and Kurdish aspirations.
The local elections next Sunday will show whether this is still true.
Democratization and the AKP
Since I couldn't get my point across in the office today, I decided to write it here. This was supposed to be the introduction of a report we were writing in the office, most of which was later omitted.
This is largely based on two articles written by Menderes Çınar from Başkent University, which I highly recommend. The first one is Turkey's Transformation Under the AKP Rule, The Muslim World, Volume 96, Number 3, July 2006 , pp. 469-486(18).
The second one is Çınar's chapter from Secular and Islamic Politics in Turkey: The Making of the Justice and Development Party, edited by Ümit Cizre and published in 2007. The chapter is called the Justice and Development Party and the Kemalist Establishment.
Since I couldn't get my point across in the office today, I decided to write it here. This was supposed to be the introduction of a report we were writing in the office, most of which was later omitted.
This is largely based on two articles written by Menderes Çınar from Başkent University, which I highly recommend. The first one is Turkey's Transformation Under the AKP Rule, The Muslim World, Volume 96, Number 3, July 2006 , pp. 469-486(18).
The second one is Çınar's chapter from Secular and Islamic Politics in Turkey: The Making of the Justice and Development Party, edited by Ümit Cizre and published in 2007. The chapter is called the Justice and Development Party and the Kemalist Establishment.
"When the Justice and Development Party (AKP) first came to power in Turkey in 2002, many saw the party as a political force that could make Turkish society more democratic. The AKP appealed to the right as well as to the left of the political spectrum by advocating liberal economic policies alongside the country’s Europeanization. Taking a more moderate line allowed the AKP to become the trustee of center right politics in Turkey following a decade of poor economic performance and corruption scandals that destroyed the credibility of the mainstream non-Islamist center-right parties.
The performance of the AKP, however, especially in its second term in office following the 2007 general elections, raises the question of whether the AKP leadership has truly internalized liberal democratic values. The AKP has used the EU as the main instrument to introduce democratic reforms in the face of opposition from the state elite. However, the stalling of the negotiation process amid mixed signals from the EU powers exposed the AKP’s limited understanding of democracy and lack of a democratization strategy independent of the EU membership drive.
The AKP’s main goal seems to be strengthening elected political class vis-à-vis the establishment dominated state. As such, the AKP overlooks the power relations between classes, genders, religious and ethnic groups within the Turkish society and these groups’ grievances, reproducing Kemalism’s distaste for politicization of different interests, and constrains its definiton of democracy to rejecting the state’s domination over political class. The party’s recent reduction of the Kurdish cause to an armed conflict and its harsh response to 1 May demonstrations illustrate this point. Naturally, one exception is the rights and liberties of Islamic identity.
The AKP’s real trouble with a state-dominated political class does not result from the undemocratic and unaccountable nature of the relationship. The AKP appears to be more concerned with who is controlling the state. Instead of increasing transparency and accountability in state institutions and bureaucracy, the party is replacing the incumbent state elite with its own supporters. It is following the same strategy of community-creating and personalizing politics as the Kemalist state establishment, displaying distrust to individuals outside its own community."
Saturday, March 14, 2009
What you thought you knew (but didn't actually know) about Turkey - 2
- How democratic is the AKP?
Western policy makers once thought that the AKP would lead to a more democratic society, and Turkey would then demonstrate the compatibility of Islam and democracy for other Muslim countries in the Middle East. (Of course, one of the purposes of our lives is to play guinea pigs in western experiments.) Turkey's liberal intelligentsia thought the displacement of the old elite in power would bring about a liberal democracy. So far, this elite seems to have been replaced by a new elite, and the AKP supporters seem to have penetrated and dominated state institutions, instead of making them more transparent and accountable. The same power game is being played, simply by a new player.
Let's take a step back first, and question whether the AKP leadership has really internalized liberal democratic values. The authors say, "Islamic conservatism is not yet at peace with an understanding of secularism that calls for the withdrawal of religion from public realm, which in turn is a prerequisite for liberal democracy." They remind us Erdogan's words, "democracy is a street car, from which we jump off after we reach our destination."
More recently, Erdogan said, "we only took the immorality of the West, not its science." The authors respond, "The Turkish intellectual debate has been haunted by the same expectation since westernization started in the 19th century, namely that it would somehow reveal itself to be possible to acquire the science and technology of the west without having to import western freedom of the mind, specifically the freedom to inquire about and question religious beliefs." The latest incident in TUBITAK (where one of the AKP-appointed administrators censored the stories about Darwin in the TUBITAK magazine, Bilim-Teknik) demonstrates this point vividly.
If you put different pieces of the story together, the picture is quite striking. AKP appoints its supporters to state institutions based on their political loyalty, not merit or competence. (Let's say they pick from a sub-set of supporters, rather than all the possible candidates for the job.) They award government contracts to supporters (ranging from local constructors, who build roads, to Çalık Holding, who will build the Samsun-Ceyhan oil pipeline, if the pipeline ever gets built). The same Çalık Holding only paid $150 million of the $1.25 billion for Sabah-ATV media group, which it won as the sole bidder in the privatization tender. The rest of the money came from state banks and a Gulf investment fund. Just so that the government can control one more piece of the media. And for the chunk of media they don't control, they start huge tax investigations.
Now everybody knows about the Deniz Feneri scandal. AKP affiliates, after having founded the charitable foundation of the same name in Turkey in 1998, decided to open one in Germany to tap the resources there - the good-hearted Turkish immigrants. They then proceeded to funnel some of the donations to their own companies, and German affiliates of Islamist media, like Yeni Şafak and Kanal 7, and couriered some of it to Turkey. According to the German indictment, Zahid Akman, the current chairman of the Supreme Board of Radio and Television (RTUK) was an active member of the operation. Akman, who belongs to the same Iskenderpaşa lodge of the Nakşibendi religious brotherhood as Erdogan, remains RTUK chairman.
Ergenekon. The investigation could have been a chance to eliminate criminal elements within the state. It could be the first step of a wholesale effort to bring to justice those responsible for the assassinations of Hrant Dink and Uğur Mumcu, the attack to the Council of State (Danıştay) in 2006, the extra-judicial killings of Kurds in the south east. I am not saying all these crimes were committed by a single organization, but Ergenekon could be the first step in a series of investigations, it could be the first spark. The investigators, however, framed the investigation around the assumption that the whole purpose was to overthrow the government. This gave them the pretext to intimidate and weaken those who oppose the AKP.
A public relations campaign is carried out in pro-government media outlets alongside the investigation. There seems to be an archive of tapped phone conversations and confidential documents, from which the most relevant ones are leaked to pro-government press at opportune times. Law 5397, which was adopted on 3.7.2005, extended the scope of legal phone tapping by allowing police chiefs, gendarmarie commanders and the National Intelligence Organization to issue a phone tapping order, subject to the approval of the judges of Heavy Punishment Courts within 24 hours. These tappings are carried out to “prevent” crimes such as organized drug trafficking and “violent attempts to overthrow the government.” There seems to be no mechanism to supervise these tappings to make sure that they remain confidential.
Given that the AKP's definition of democracy is limited to electoral success, it is no surprise that the government's main priority has been the local elections since the Constitutional Court verdict that saved them from dissolution in July. Erdogan himself picked most of the AKP candidates in the local elections. Within the party, Erdogan is surrounded by a circle of loyal supporters, and he has to have the last word before a piece of legislation is submitted to the parliament. There must be a mountain of law proposals in the "Prime Ministry," which are waiting to get the final seal of approval. Very often a law proposal that made the headlines in newspapers is forgotten after it is lost in the prime minister's office.
For someone who doesn't have a personal interest in Turkey, all this may seem like details. This kind of thing happens in every emerging market, one may say. But I am happy that I am able to care enough to feel angry at this. This is not just any subject matter for me, I actually care about it. And I am deeply disappointed. I thought it would be shame not to speak up about it when I have an opinion about it.
Friday, March 13, 2009
İnanç
Bugün ofiste, inanma kavramını düşündüm. İnanç nedir? Birine ya da bir şeye, bir şeyin inandığımız gibi olduğuna neden, nasıl inanırız? Sonra dedim ki, inanç, aslında bilmediğin bir şeyi bildiğini düşünmektir. İnsan bir kez bir şeye inanınca, sanki onu biliyormuş sanır kendini. Görmeyi, düşünmeyi bırakır. Gerçeğin bir adım ötesinde, hızlı hızlı yürümeye başlar, kendi davulunu çalarak, gerçek arkasından yetişmeye çalışır, omzunu dürter ama nafile. Sonra birden durur insan yolun ortasında. Acaba der, pili bitmiş ayıcıklar gibi. Emin olamaz, tokmağı tutan eli havada. Arkasına döner, ama gerçeği göremez. Döner, döner ama gerçek hiç bir yerde yoktur. Kimseye soramaz, o kadar zaman görmezlikten geldiği anlaşılacak diye.
Geriye kalan sadece şüphe.
Bugün ofiste, inanma kavramını düşündüm. İnanç nedir? Birine ya da bir şeye, bir şeyin inandığımız gibi olduğuna neden, nasıl inanırız? Sonra dedim ki, inanç, aslında bilmediğin bir şeyi bildiğini düşünmektir. İnsan bir kez bir şeye inanınca, sanki onu biliyormuş sanır kendini. Görmeyi, düşünmeyi bırakır. Gerçeğin bir adım ötesinde, hızlı hızlı yürümeye başlar, kendi davulunu çalarak, gerçek arkasından yetişmeye çalışır, omzunu dürter ama nafile. Sonra birden durur insan yolun ortasında. Acaba der, pili bitmiş ayıcıklar gibi. Emin olamaz, tokmağı tutan eli havada. Arkasına döner, ama gerçeği göremez. Döner, döner ama gerçek hiç bir yerde yoktur. Kimseye soramaz, o kadar zaman görmezlikten geldiği anlaşılacak diye.
Geriye kalan sadece şüphe.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
What you thought you knew (but didn't actually know) about Turkey - 1
I read an article called "Prospects for a 'torn' Turkey: A secular and unitary future?" by Svante E. Cornell and Halil Magnus Karaveli of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, Silk Road Studies Program. Their arguments were very refreshing. They made me realize that most accounts of what's going on in Turkey (especially Western perceptions, including some of my 'received opinions') are hopelessly simplistic. So I decided to note some of their points here in a series of posts.
I read an article called "Prospects for a 'torn' Turkey: A secular and unitary future?" by Svante E. Cornell and Halil Magnus Karaveli of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, Silk Road Studies Program. Their arguments were very refreshing. They made me realize that most accounts of what's going on in Turkey (especially Western perceptions, including some of my 'received opinions') are hopelessly simplistic. So I decided to note some of their points here in a series of posts.
- Islamic ascendancy was the "irresistable reclaim by a supposedly essential popular culture of a terrain that had been occupied by an alien secularism imposed from above by the state."
In fact, successive secular governments have accommodated Islam since Turkey became a multi-party democracy in 1950. Under the watch of center-right governments Sunni Islam came to dominate the school system and private schools funded by Islamic fraternities and orders found fertile ground.
Ironically, it was the military rule following the 1980 coup that encouraged Islamist politics as an alternative to radical left. With the ingenious "Turkish-Islamic synthesis," the generals attempted to blend right-wing nationalism and Islam. The "Religious Culture and Ethics" class made its way into elementary school curriculum (and the consitution), clerical high schools expanded and a new Islamic intelligentsia was born. The liberalization of the economy created a new middle class with more conservative values, while simultaneously increasing income disparities in the society, fuelling support for Islamic conservatism.
Just as it is simplistic to claim that the state bureaucracy and military are homogenously secularist, it is also simplistic to think that secularism does not have any popular legitimacy. The 2007 Republican demonstrations displayed the popular secularist sentiment (although now the Ergenekon indictment claims that they were an attempt to overthrow the government and put state security at risk.) Although I don't think the organizers of those demonstrations are particularly bright, the democratic right of the participants to express their views is not less important than that of the Islamist conservatives.
Finally, an inherent deficiency of secularism contributed to its decline. As Şerif Mardin put it, "the republic has not given the question of what is good, right and aesthetic any deeper consideration. That is the deficiency of Kemalism." The authors go on to say: "Kemalism was not unsuccessful because it has been applied with vigor and insensitivity to popularly held beliefs, but because republican ideology remained philosophically arid, insufficienty connected to and fecundated by the heritage of the Enlightenment." This goes back to the state policy of accommodating religion while "appearing" secular.
Next up:
- The prospects of an Islamic reconciliation with liberal values - how democratic is the AKP?
- The dynamics of ethnic seperatism, Islamism and neo-nationalism.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Religious defamation
Last week at the LSE Literary Weekend there was a lecture about religious defamation. It got me thinking, so I decided to write a few words about it. When the Danish cartoon crisis broke out three years ago, I was quite angry at the Danish. I didn't see the use in publishing those cartoons at all, to me, its only effect was insulting people's culture and identity, provoking even the most moderate Muslims.
There is another side to the story. Religious people think they know the absolute answer to some questions: questions about how our existence came about, how we should conduct our worldly affairs, what will happen after life. They refuse to engage in a debate, and even posing these questions is sometimes enough to offend them. Sometimes they think the other side is not looking for the answer, but simply trying to offend them.
Being around people who get easily offended can be tiresome. It forces one to self-censorship, and this is sort of a defeat. You tacitly accept their version of the truth because you don't want to deal with the fall out. And as one of the speakers in the panel rightly pointed out, this is an impediment to the pursuit of truth. If we keep considering all the ways in which everyone could get offended, we would never speak. (Next time I look offended, remind me this please. And what you just said probably had some truth in it if I look offended. If it was really wrong, I would just be jumping up and down trying to correct you.)
It goes without saying, however, that provoking people is not the only way to get them thinking. There may be better ways.
Last week at the LSE Literary Weekend there was a lecture about religious defamation. It got me thinking, so I decided to write a few words about it. When the Danish cartoon crisis broke out three years ago, I was quite angry at the Danish. I didn't see the use in publishing those cartoons at all, to me, its only effect was insulting people's culture and identity, provoking even the most moderate Muslims.
There is another side to the story. Religious people think they know the absolute answer to some questions: questions about how our existence came about, how we should conduct our worldly affairs, what will happen after life. They refuse to engage in a debate, and even posing these questions is sometimes enough to offend them. Sometimes they think the other side is not looking for the answer, but simply trying to offend them.
Being around people who get easily offended can be tiresome. It forces one to self-censorship, and this is sort of a defeat. You tacitly accept their version of the truth because you don't want to deal with the fall out. And as one of the speakers in the panel rightly pointed out, this is an impediment to the pursuit of truth. If we keep considering all the ways in which everyone could get offended, we would never speak. (Next time I look offended, remind me this please. And what you just said probably had some truth in it if I look offended. If it was really wrong, I would just be jumping up and down trying to correct you.)
It goes without saying, however, that provoking people is not the only way to get them thinking. There may be better ways.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
The Class
This week my friend and I wound up seeing the Class, French director Laurent Cantet's film about a French language and literature teacher struggling to inspire his high school class in the Parisian suburbia. The continuous noise of the class, with its immaturely opinionated and easily offended students, the liberal teacher who loses his cool, the teacher's less idealistic colleagues who view the students as nothing but the subject matter... It was all very realistic. Although my high school was much more homogenous in terms of the students' backgrounds, I remember the continuous chatter, the rebels who would always argue with the teachers, and how sad and unusually quiet an empty classroom looks.
There are a couple of things that lingered on in my mind after the movie. How to win respect? Simply being more senior (in terms of age or experience), having the power to fire, hire or suspend someone, or knowing more is not enough to win someone's genuine respect. Genuine respect is something closer to affection and admiration than to fear, and it only comes with time. A person would earn respect by caring about the people around them, by treating them kindly and showing genuine interest in them, by listening to them, rather than assuming they are better and respectable by default. And a genuinely respectable person would not need to impose their respectability on others, but instead allow them to decide for themselves. Many teachers and bosses are too consumed by their supposed power to consider these things.
And I thought about what all that chatter in a classroom or a teachers' room meant. How the most important things (inequality between classes and cultures or the fate of a student) are spoken alongside the most mundane, like the price of coffee and football stars. And every day, the most important and unimportant things are spoken everywhere with miniscule intervals. And sometimes, the most important things are spoken of as if they are not important, without consideration, and the most mundane are spoken of as if they are the most important things in the world, with great passion. All this is a mystery to me.
This week my friend and I wound up seeing the Class, French director Laurent Cantet's film about a French language and literature teacher struggling to inspire his high school class in the Parisian suburbia. The continuous noise of the class, with its immaturely opinionated and easily offended students, the liberal teacher who loses his cool, the teacher's less idealistic colleagues who view the students as nothing but the subject matter... It was all very realistic. Although my high school was much more homogenous in terms of the students' backgrounds, I remember the continuous chatter, the rebels who would always argue with the teachers, and how sad and unusually quiet an empty classroom looks.
There are a couple of things that lingered on in my mind after the movie. How to win respect? Simply being more senior (in terms of age or experience), having the power to fire, hire or suspend someone, or knowing more is not enough to win someone's genuine respect. Genuine respect is something closer to affection and admiration than to fear, and it only comes with time. A person would earn respect by caring about the people around them, by treating them kindly and showing genuine interest in them, by listening to them, rather than assuming they are better and respectable by default. And a genuinely respectable person would not need to impose their respectability on others, but instead allow them to decide for themselves. Many teachers and bosses are too consumed by their supposed power to consider these things.
And I thought about what all that chatter in a classroom or a teachers' room meant. How the most important things (inequality between classes and cultures or the fate of a student) are spoken alongside the most mundane, like the price of coffee and football stars. And every day, the most important and unimportant things are spoken everywhere with miniscule intervals. And sometimes, the most important things are spoken of as if they are not important, without consideration, and the most mundane are spoken of as if they are the most important things in the world, with great passion. All this is a mystery to me.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
(bir kaç gün önce yazdım bunu)
bağımsızlık
İnsan ne zaman birinden bir şey saklamış olur? Onu ilgilendiren bir şeyi anlatmadığında mı? Halbuki sevdiklerimize, daha da doğrusu bizi sevenlere gerçekten aklımızdan geçenleri bütün doğruluğuyla ve açıklığıyla anlatmak ne kadar zor. Biz anlatabilsek, anlattığımızı sansak bile, onların anlayabilmeleri ne kadar zor. Sanki her tanıdığımızla farklı bir dil konuşuyoruz, gerçeğin onların kaldırabileceğini (ya da duymak istediğini) düşündüğümüz kadarını anlatıyoruz.
Peki bir de anlatan netleştikçe anlattıkça, dinleyen bulanıyorsa, anlatan genişledikçe, dinleyen küçülüyorsa, anlatan kuralları koydukça, dinleyen bunları kabulleniyorsa? Anlatan ilerledikçe, dinleyen geri çekiliyorsa?
Eskiden de kafam yeterince karışıktı, şimdi hepten karıştı. Sanki ateşkes zamanı, yıkılan duvarları yeniden yapmak için. Ama eskiye dönmenin de imkanı yok, çoktan yapısı değişti zerrelerin. Ama zaten kurtuluş değil aradığım, bağımsızlık.
Sanki bağımsızlığın tek yolu var. Hiç geri çekilmeden, dinledikçe düşünmek, düşündükçe yazmak, hiç durmadan, pes etmeden topu alıp ileri sürmek. Değişsek bile küçülmemek, hep var olmak. Bu toplar hiç susmayacak, fenerler hep yanacak.
Belki bir yanım isterdi ki ateşkes yapalım, daha az yorucu olurdu belki zayıflık. Ama asıl istediğim savaşmak.
bağımsızlık
İnsan ne zaman birinden bir şey saklamış olur? Onu ilgilendiren bir şeyi anlatmadığında mı? Halbuki sevdiklerimize, daha da doğrusu bizi sevenlere gerçekten aklımızdan geçenleri bütün doğruluğuyla ve açıklığıyla anlatmak ne kadar zor. Biz anlatabilsek, anlattığımızı sansak bile, onların anlayabilmeleri ne kadar zor. Sanki her tanıdığımızla farklı bir dil konuşuyoruz, gerçeğin onların kaldırabileceğini (ya da duymak istediğini) düşündüğümüz kadarını anlatıyoruz.
Peki bir de anlatan netleştikçe anlattıkça, dinleyen bulanıyorsa, anlatan genişledikçe, dinleyen küçülüyorsa, anlatan kuralları koydukça, dinleyen bunları kabulleniyorsa? Anlatan ilerledikçe, dinleyen geri çekiliyorsa?
Eskiden de kafam yeterince karışıktı, şimdi hepten karıştı. Sanki ateşkes zamanı, yıkılan duvarları yeniden yapmak için. Ama eskiye dönmenin de imkanı yok, çoktan yapısı değişti zerrelerin. Ama zaten kurtuluş değil aradığım, bağımsızlık.
Sanki bağımsızlığın tek yolu var. Hiç geri çekilmeden, dinledikçe düşünmek, düşündükçe yazmak, hiç durmadan, pes etmeden topu alıp ileri sürmek. Değişsek bile küçülmemek, hep var olmak. Bu toplar hiç susmayacak, fenerler hep yanacak.
Belki bir yanım isterdi ki ateşkes yapalım, daha az yorucu olurdu belki zayıflık. Ama asıl istediğim savaşmak.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
I'm indebted to Orhan Pamuk's Nobel Lecture.
Happiness
Over the past week, I got so confused, and I didn't know why, my brain felt like a knot, made with several innumerable thick ropes. Sometimes I came up with an idea, like a string in one of the ropes, which felt like if I pulled it, the whole thing would untie and leave me at peace. But I didn't have time to put it down on paper (or here), and none of those small strings were strong enough to untie my knot, they turned out to be false promises. In the meantime, I kept adding new things, food, exhibitions, concerts, work, and felt literally poisoned by too much taking, too much consumption, indigestion. I was taking in things but they didn't settle. I wished I was smooth and at ease with myself, with my job, with people. I wasn't. I knew I had gotten emotional because my parents were around, so I thought it was normal and I even wrote about it and figured it out before, so writing the same thing wouldn't solve it. Something else was wrong.
Then my parents and I were sitting at the court of the British Museum, and whatever we were talking about (that there's a leak in my downstairs neighbor's flat and my bathroom will suffer some meddling on Monday and the safety of all this) prompted me to say, "this is not important. What's important is, I can't see what's ahead of me." Now, my mom and dad, I discount them for looking over important things (intentionally?) and obsess about small problems (they claim they'll make big problems if left undealt - maybe they are unimportant for me because my parents have already taken care of them) took on my problem with ease, like the answer was obvious, and my mom said, "You can't be certain of anything. The only thing you can be certain of is yourself. The only thing you can be certain of is how you will react to the things that come up." A large thick rope was pulled off, untangling part of the knot. I couldn't believe how it calmed me down.
We walked around the Shah 'Abbas exhibition, so beautiful, familiar, sometimes unnerving with the weight of history and imperfection. Later that evening, as we were having dinner, my dad said: "You know those mystical stories... How the dervish travels through so many places to find the happiness in himself..." I was going to be the same. I remembered my friend's words from a year and a half ago. I wasn't there yet. But I realized that the reason my parents didn't talk about important things wasn't because they didn't think about them. Some of them, they had already solved in themselves. Others, now I'm sure, were on their mind. They didn't face up to them constantly, sometimes they attempted to forget about them, like we all do. They tried to keep themselves occupied with other things, like we all do. But they were aware of the important things.
The biggest sin one can commit is to act against one's nature. And I stand by my previous proposition that life's goal is happiness. And, I must say, there is nothing wrong with that. A truly happy person should be respected and admired, because they must have been through so much, worked so hard. The only nuance is about looking for, finding out and pursuing those things that make one happy. Orhan Pamuk's books are full of characters who thrive in being "(allegedly) intelligent and unhappy." They tangle things, make knots and don't attempt to untangle them. This is laziness, cynicism. Just like it is lazy to settle with a lesser happiness because one lacks the courage to strive for the real things that make one happy. It is unwise to judge from outside, without knowing the person.
Happiness
Over the past week, I got so confused, and I didn't know why, my brain felt like a knot, made with several innumerable thick ropes. Sometimes I came up with an idea, like a string in one of the ropes, which felt like if I pulled it, the whole thing would untie and leave me at peace. But I didn't have time to put it down on paper (or here), and none of those small strings were strong enough to untie my knot, they turned out to be false promises. In the meantime, I kept adding new things, food, exhibitions, concerts, work, and felt literally poisoned by too much taking, too much consumption, indigestion. I was taking in things but they didn't settle. I wished I was smooth and at ease with myself, with my job, with people. I wasn't. I knew I had gotten emotional because my parents were around, so I thought it was normal and I even wrote about it and figured it out before, so writing the same thing wouldn't solve it. Something else was wrong.
Then my parents and I were sitting at the court of the British Museum, and whatever we were talking about (that there's a leak in my downstairs neighbor's flat and my bathroom will suffer some meddling on Monday and the safety of all this) prompted me to say, "this is not important. What's important is, I can't see what's ahead of me." Now, my mom and dad, I discount them for looking over important things (intentionally?) and obsess about small problems (they claim they'll make big problems if left undealt - maybe they are unimportant for me because my parents have already taken care of them) took on my problem with ease, like the answer was obvious, and my mom said, "You can't be certain of anything. The only thing you can be certain of is yourself. The only thing you can be certain of is how you will react to the things that come up." A large thick rope was pulled off, untangling part of the knot. I couldn't believe how it calmed me down.
We walked around the Shah 'Abbas exhibition, so beautiful, familiar, sometimes unnerving with the weight of history and imperfection. Later that evening, as we were having dinner, my dad said: "You know those mystical stories... How the dervish travels through so many places to find the happiness in himself..." I was going to be the same. I remembered my friend's words from a year and a half ago. I wasn't there yet. But I realized that the reason my parents didn't talk about important things wasn't because they didn't think about them. Some of them, they had already solved in themselves. Others, now I'm sure, were on their mind. They didn't face up to them constantly, sometimes they attempted to forget about them, like we all do. They tried to keep themselves occupied with other things, like we all do. But they were aware of the important things.
The biggest sin one can commit is to act against one's nature. And I stand by my previous proposition that life's goal is happiness. And, I must say, there is nothing wrong with that. A truly happy person should be respected and admired, because they must have been through so much, worked so hard. The only nuance is about looking for, finding out and pursuing those things that make one happy. Orhan Pamuk's books are full of characters who thrive in being "(allegedly) intelligent and unhappy." They tangle things, make knots and don't attempt to untangle them. This is laziness, cynicism. Just like it is lazy to settle with a lesser happiness because one lacks the courage to strive for the real things that make one happy. It is unwise to judge from outside, without knowing the person.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)