Throwing the Book at Pamuk
The TLS has a couple of articles well worth perusing: an analysis of the recent trial of Orhan Pamuk; and a review of a biography of Musa Sanib (Iurii Shanibov) a would-be Circassian nationalist.
The case against Pamuk may have been dropped (see here and here at Blogrel - thanks Katy & Hovakim - for good round ups) but now a whole new tranche of Turkish writers has been indicted for the same 'crimes'. A particularly interesting point is made in the article that, in contrast to the current wave of protests over 'Cartoongate',
"the voices of censure against the writer claim to be upholding the values of secular democracy in Turkey. These voices come from what is often termed Turkey’s derin devlet (literally, “deep state”) made up from officials in the state bureaucracies and some ranks of the military establishment, which still hold considerable power in the country. These elements have long seen themselves as the custodians of secularism in Turkey, and certain quarters within this derin devlet view with suspicion the vigorous reform agenda that is being run by a government with its roots in Islam."
Having at least read a couple of Pamuk's novels and other pieces of his journalism, and also having a background in Ottoman studies, I find his case (that is, his legal travails) to be gripping from the perspective of one (me) who usually always sides with the artist against the State. However, I haven't read much about the events of 1916, which have led to accusations of genocide against the Ottoman sultanate and Young Turk government, mostly because it seems impossible to read an even-handed historical account that allows the reader to make up his/her own mind. I'd welcome recommendations.
Likewise, I don't know much the North Caucasus tbh. All I really ever knew was that Circassian women were highly prized by the Ottoman sultans; also, I could never place Circassia on a map (but if you know where the modern-day Russian Republic of Karachay-Cherkessia is, you're in the right area). In this review of Georgi M. Derlugian's biography of Shanibov there is one particular sentence that sticks out which could apply equally to other regions of the ex-USSR when considering the authoritarian regimes that have entrenched themselves in the 'successor states':
"Derluguian’s answers to these questions are unconventional. The collapse of the Soviet system was part of the broader crisis of “developmental states” in the 1980s and 90s, states that had arrogated to themselves a whole host of responsibilities that they were increasingly unable to fulfil. In the context of a collapsing political order, mid-level bureaucrats in these states scrambled for ways of securing their livelihoods; the most resourceful of them turned to nationalism and ethnic exclusivism as alternative sources of legitimacy. The masses, however, were not simply duped by these new elites; they, too, found ethnic linkages to be crucial sources of social capital at a time when alternatives - class, for example - suddenly disappeared."
I'm getting increasingly interested in notions of historical identity as a basis for modern nation-states as it looks like being the subject of my Masters' dissertation (Uzbekistan being the country under scrutiny). God, I AM a nerd ...
The case against Pamuk may have been dropped (see here and here at Blogrel - thanks Katy & Hovakim - for good round ups) but now a whole new tranche of Turkish writers has been indicted for the same 'crimes'. A particularly interesting point is made in the article that, in contrast to the current wave of protests over 'Cartoongate',
"the voices of censure against the writer claim to be upholding the values of secular democracy in Turkey. These voices come from what is often termed Turkey’s derin devlet (literally, “deep state”) made up from officials in the state bureaucracies and some ranks of the military establishment, which still hold considerable power in the country. These elements have long seen themselves as the custodians of secularism in Turkey, and certain quarters within this derin devlet view with suspicion the vigorous reform agenda that is being run by a government with its roots in Islam."
Having at least read a couple of Pamuk's novels and other pieces of his journalism, and also having a background in Ottoman studies, I find his case (that is, his legal travails) to be gripping from the perspective of one (me) who usually always sides with the artist against the State. However, I haven't read much about the events of 1916, which have led to accusations of genocide against the Ottoman sultanate and Young Turk government, mostly because it seems impossible to read an even-handed historical account that allows the reader to make up his/her own mind. I'd welcome recommendations.
Likewise, I don't know much the North Caucasus tbh. All I really ever knew was that Circassian women were highly prized by the Ottoman sultans; also, I could never place Circassia on a map (but if you know where the modern-day Russian Republic of Karachay-Cherkessia is, you're in the right area). In this review of Georgi M. Derlugian's biography of Shanibov there is one particular sentence that sticks out which could apply equally to other regions of the ex-USSR when considering the authoritarian regimes that have entrenched themselves in the 'successor states':
"Derluguian’s answers to these questions are unconventional. The collapse of the Soviet system was part of the broader crisis of “developmental states” in the 1980s and 90s, states that had arrogated to themselves a whole host of responsibilities that they were increasingly unable to fulfil. In the context of a collapsing political order, mid-level bureaucrats in these states scrambled for ways of securing their livelihoods; the most resourceful of them turned to nationalism and ethnic exclusivism as alternative sources of legitimacy. The masses, however, were not simply duped by these new elites; they, too, found ethnic linkages to be crucial sources of social capital at a time when alternatives - class, for example - suddenly disappeared."
I'm getting increasingly interested in notions of historical identity as a basis for modern nation-states as it looks like being the subject of my Masters' dissertation (Uzbekistan being the country under scrutiny). God, I AM a nerd ...